On Sun, 2023-02-05 at 09:08 -0700, stan via users wrote:
> And the way you phrased your response comes across as sarcastic and
> demeaning, almost as a personal attack. Maybe you didn't mean it that
> way, but that's how I would interpret it.
That's how I took it.
I gave a reasoned response about why I didn't think it was
"intuitive" and got a rude hissy fit in response.
I don't *expect* that setting the same variable several times over
would anything other than re-set it each time, that's actually
*contrary* to what I'd *expect*.
Sure, that is an "opinion," but not an unreasonable one, nor a rude
one, nor different from historical experience of how variables are set
in programs. Hence how I came to that conclusion. Thus far I've not
seen a configuration file where I could set a variable to different
things, and have them all accumulate. It's counter to my experience.
Just off the top of my head, out of the services I've made use of over
the years, I wouldn't expect it work in BIND, DHCP, Apache, sendmail,
postfix, Dovecot, NTPD, CUPS, Samba, yum, dnf. Nor any of the
programming languages I've used since the 1980s. Sure, a person's
experience is only ever going to be a subset of *everything*, but it
gives you a fair idea of what to expect when configuring things.
I only *expect* one of two things to happen:
1. The last time the variable is set, is what it will be.
2. The program to error-out and complain that a variable has been set
twice.
Yes, it *could* work *otherwise*, but the man file doesn't suggest so,
I'd be surprised if it did, and *I* wouldn't rely on undocumented
features or quirks. I pointed out the historical aspect of doing
things like that (using undocumented features), they became know as
"HCF codes."
I also pointed out the clue in the configuration file that would lead
me to *expect* that kind of behaviour:
variable-name = adjustable-values
The equal sign implies this is that, it doesn't imply anything else.
The really odd thing is they want to argue strongly against the case of
what it appears to do (work how I expected it to) for a behaviour that
would be programmatically peculiar, that the manual doesn't even
slightly suggest, but does quite clearly explain how you're expected to
use it.
Why would you expect it to work in some way that's different from the
instructions?
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.83.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Jan 25 16:41:43 UTC 2023 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
