[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Does `@include' equivalent to `include'?

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

--- Nicolas Fran├žois 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.  

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]