[asterisk-dev] extensions.conf included contexts priorities

[Andrew Kohlsmith]

On Wednesday 25 April 2007 10:37 am, Leif Madsen wrote:
> [long_distance]
> exten => _1NXXNXXXXXX,1,Dial(IAX2/${UPSTEAM}/${EXTEN})
>
> exten => h,1,Verbose(1|This would actually get hit, and not the _. pattern)
> include => match_all
>
> [match_all]
> exten => _.,1,NoOp()
> exten => _.,n,Playback(cant-let-you-do-that)

Having _. matching oshiatT is a HUGE design mistake, IMO.

> Only the order of includes should matter, and not where they are placed in
> the dialplan in relation to extensions in the same context.

See, I very much disagree.  The order is important, but not the placement... 
seems very... awkward.  In other words, include placement is only relevant to 
other includes, but not to the rest of the dialplan?  And wildcards match up 
most-specific first, excluding included contexts?  It's confusing.

At the *very* least, includes should throw a big fat warning if they are 
placed above extensions in a context.

-A.