[asterisk-dev] Better pattern matching

Benny Amorsen benny+usenet at amorsen.dk
Mon Aug 6 17:00:07 CDT 2007

>>>>> "SM" == Steve Murphy <murf at digium.com> writes:

SM> As far as AEL goes-- I don't understand the problem. What you
SM> said, in a different context: ...there is no way I'll touch C,
SM> which compiles to something as complicated as the current .asm !

There are excellent debugging tools for C, so much so that backtraces
mention source lines -- you hardly ever need to refer to the actual
asm. Also, asm is in most cases simple, and in the only other common
case, at least thoroughly debugged. (Yes, I've read Intel errata
sheets, and while they may be somewhat scary reading, the errata tend
to be VERY obscure).

SM> I don't see how AEL's output is any worse than hand-written
SM> extensions.conf files. Someday, we might generate stuff with
SM> labels only, but never saw it as a requirement to do so; We aren't
SM> expecting folks to hand-edit the output of AEL. Doesn't make
SM> sense. Edit the source AEL file, and regenerate the file. It only
SM> takes a second.

I don't want to edit the generated file, I just want to make sure that
it's safe. And if I have to read it to make sure that it's safe, I
might as well just write it in the first place.

SM> Tell me what's keeping you from adopting AEL, maybe we can make it
SM> easier for you.

Just make an interpreter for the simpler and more regular syntax of


More information about the asterisk-dev mailing list