Does `@include' equivalent to `include'?

[shaul Karl]

1. The following can be useful to document the
@include directive. It was noted that one can use
include and @include directives at the same
configuration file. It is taken from
https://www.redhat.com/archives/pam-list/2008-April/msg00010.html

--- Nicolas François wrote:

> 
> The syntax for include and @include differ.
> 
> In a /etc/pam.d file, the syntax of a line is:
>     <type> <control> <module-path>
> <module-arguments>
> 
>   include is used as a <control>
> 
>   @include is used as a <type>
> 
> 
> Then the semantic is also different:
> 
>   include:
>     include all lines of given type from the
> configuration file specified as
>     an argument to this control.
> 
>   @include:
>     parse a given file at the given location of the
> /etc/pam.d file
> 

2. I think that @include obeys to the least expected 
surprise rule. I am reading the administrator pam
guide. Even though the guide documents the include
directive correctly, unless I had written this reply I
would remember that the semantics of include is
actually the semantics of @include. Obviously, if I
had seen a correct configuration file that someone
else wrote, I might have notice that contrary to my
expectations, include is used as a <control> and not
as a <type>. However if I had tried to wrote a
configuration file from scratch, I might have wrote a
line with include as a <type>.
3. In order to better emphasize and differentiate
@include from include to the occasional reader,
perhaps one of the two should have renamed source? 


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.  
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com