Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
> --On 21 August 2009 18:56:13 +0200 MarkdV <markdv.exim@???> wrote:
>
>> Ian Eiloart wrote:
>>> --On 20 August 2009 16:32:40 +0100 Jethro R Binks
>>> <jethro.binks@???> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Todd Lyons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why is it an accept? That whole endpass thing just never really made
>>>>> a whole lot of sense to me. Every time I have a case where I need to
>>>>> use it, I have to study the docs and figure it out step by step. It's
>>>>> not a natural thought process, and for some reason the knowledge
>>>>> doesn't stick around after I've implemented it. I'll just assume that
>>>>> I'm getting old and just can't remember crap anymore...
>>>> If it's any consolution, I made similar grumbles to PH a few years ago
>>>> about endpass, I always struggled to get my head around it, and like
>>>> you, had to keep re-reading the docs. He didn't disagree that it was
>>>> non-intuitive and awkward. :)
>>> so, according to the docs, endpass can only be used in an accept
>>> statement.
>>>
>>> accept condition a
>>> condition b
>>> endpass
>>> condition c
>>> condition d
>>>
>>> will either accept, deny or pass. It'll accept if all conditions are
>>> true. It'll pass if a or b are false. It'll deny if a and b are true,
>>> but c or d are false.
>>>
>>>
>>> a and b !(a and b)
>>> c or d true: accept pass
>>> c or d false: deny pass
>> No, that first one should be c _and_ d true. You said it yourself, "if
>> _all_ conditions are true".
>
> quite right, it should be. Or. "! (c or d false)"
>
>>> I think it's equivalent to nesting, like this:
>>> accept condition a
>>> condition b
>>> deny
>>> ! condition c
>>> ! condition d
>> So, no... More like:
>>
>> accept condition a
>> condition b
>> require
>> condition c
>> condition d
>
> No, because "require c, d" passes when c or d are false. "deny !c, !d"
> denies when c or d are false.
IMHO what endpass does now resembles "require", because like require it
requires all conditions to be true otherwise it will reject. That's why
I thought require instead of deny.
deny
! cond c
! cond d
Will only deny if both c and d are false. Where endpass as we know it
will cause a deny if either of the conditions are false. See what I mean?
"!c and !d" is not the same as "!(c and d)". The former is what your
deny does, the latter can't be done with deny but is what require does.
> It should do what accept...endpass does.
Hmm.. wait. Maybe I misunderstood you, are you talking about a different
kind of modifier(s) for accept only? Or allow those modifiers to also be
applied to other statements (deny/require/warn)? I thought you meant the
latter...
>The problem is not the behaviour
> of endpass, but the poor self-documentation that results from the lack of
> clarity in meaning.
Agreed there. ;)
Cheers,
Mark.
