Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2009/10/27 Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>:
>
>> On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 00:38 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
>>
>>> new feature
>>>
>> One additional point that would be useful is a way to match up the usage
>> of custom_variable_classes with this new style of .conf file processing.
>>
>> At the moment if you wish to add a custom variable class everybody needs
>> to edit the *same* parameter. Finding which one to edit could be a
>> little difficult with a whole directory to search in.
>>
>> I propose a new form of processing for that variable: each new parameter
>> instance is added to last one, rather than replacing it.
>> e.g.
>> custom_variable_class = 'x'
>> custom_variable_class = 'y'
>> custom_variable_class = 'z'
>> is equivalent to
>> custom_variable_classes = 'x,y,z'
>>
>> That allows NewFeatureX to drop in a file called "newfeaturex.conf",
>> which looks like this
>>
>> custom_variable_class = 'newfeaturex'
>> newfeaturex.param1 = x
>> newfeaturex.param2 = y
>> newfeaturex.param3 = z
>>
>> This requires no editing of any other files, just a straight drop in.
>> That will make it much easier to produce real installers/deinstallers
>> for add-in modules.
>>
>
> I understand, but this behave is confusing. Maybe better is using some
> trivial keywords like append, delete, reset
>
> so
> append custom_variable_class = 'x'
> append custom_variable_class = 'y'
> append custom_variable_class = 'z'
>
> is custom_variable_classes = 'x,y,z'
>
>
Why not allow something like += or .= instead of the = to denote
appending to a list?
custom_variable_classes += 'x'
seems a whole lot nicer to me.
cheers
andrew