On 8/17/19 10:55 PM, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I know I sent a RFC using typeof(), I wonder if you could just use the
>> selector instead, it's a bit of a lot of type typeof() . typeof()
>> probably.
>>
>> So this is left as this:
>>
>> type osf name
>>
>> in concatenations, like this:
>>
>> nft add set ip filter allowed "{ type ip daddr . tcp dport; }"
>>
>> Probably I would ask my sysadmin friends what they think.
>
> Yes, please do, it would be good to get a non-developer perspective.
>
> I'm very used to things like sizeof(), so typeof() felt natural to me.
>
> Might be very un-intuitive for non-developers though, so it would be
> good to get outside perspective.
>
>From my point of view, this is a rather advanced operation. As long as it is
properly documented, I don't see any problem with `typeof()`.
Also, just `typeof` would work of course. Up to you.
Thanks for working on this!
