[PATCH 2/3] Config file fixes.

[Ian Jackson]

Richard Kettlewell writes ("Re: [PATCH 2/3] Config file fixes."):
> On 04/08/2011 15:16, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > We seem to be gradually abolishing [c]string_t.  Perhaps we should do
> > so globally ?  (Says the guy with a huge outstanding patch serieses...)
> 
> I'll add it to my list. l-)

Heh.

> > This is an excessive recursion catch, isn't it ?  Why is it a uint32_t
> > even ?  I think my uint32_t =>  int changes should probably have
> > touched this too.
> 
> Oh, yes, int would be much better.

Right.

> >> -	uint32_t lineno;
> >> +	int lineno;
> >
> > I remember spotting this and not changing it.  I can't remember why.
> 
> I've skimmed its uses again and still can't see any reason not to make 
> it 'int'.  It's assigned from config_lineno which is an int in current 
> HEAD, so it's not like it gives you an extra 2 billion lines of elbow 
> room (in case you want to use the config infrastructure to its true 
> potential l-)

Right.

> >> +	/* The caller is expected to only give us [0-9]+,
> >> +	 * so we skip some of the usual syntax checking. */
> >
> > By "the caller" you mean flex ?
> 
> Yes; the only caller of numnode[1] is in conffile.fl:

Right.  I was just a bit curious about the comment but I think it's
fine in that context.

>  I can add the extra checking if 
> you think that's worthwhile.

No, not really.

Thanks,
Ian.