[asterisk-dev] Command Syntax -- weird?

[Jeffrey C. Ollie]

On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 23:34 -0400, Peter Beckman wrote:
> 
> I have *not* been involved in any development of Asterisk, so I feel
> sheepish questioning your methods.  Of course, this has never stopped me
> before, and not about to change. :-)
> 
> Is there any reason why Asterisk has chosen such strange and inconsistent
> methods of passing variables to functions?

Asterisk has benefited from the contributions of many different
developers.  In the beginning, there wasn't a standard way for
applications to parse their argument - each application had to implement
it's own code for parsing arguments.  Naturally, different developers
implemented argument parsing in slightly different ways.

It's too late to do anything about application argument parsing for 1.4
which is due this summer.  There are a number of people that want to
address this for 1.6 which is due later this year.

One approach is being worked on by Steve Murphy here:

http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk?rev=21450&view=rev
http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/2006-March/019665.html

Jeff

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20060422/c60b671e/attachment.pgp