[Asterisk-Users] Priority usage: absolute sequential vs. sequential

[Steven Critchfield]

Just a suggestion for dealing with the current behavior. In vim, at
least in my configuration, a ctrl-a will increment the number under the
cursor single or multi digit numbers work the same.

On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 14:18, John Todd wrote:
> (Yes, today is the "John has an idea day")
> 
> So, in my now fairly extensive coding of extension priority lists, 
> I'm getting very bored of re-numbering my priority lists every time I 
> add something at the top of the list.  If I have a 7 step priority 
> list, and I need to add something in at priority 2, then I have to 
> re-number five other priorities, and if my Dial statement is 
> somewhere higher than 2, I also have to renumber my "Busy" case 
> numbers as well (but see my other email of a few minutes ago as to 
> how this might be removed altogether.)
> 
> Anyway, I had the same headache with Cisco access lists many, many 
> years ago when I was learning those syntaxes.  Then I discovered that 
> those access lists didn't have to be exactly sequential; they could 
> simply be generally sequential, meaning that instead of 1 followed by 
> 2 followed by 3, they could be 10 followed by 20 followed by 30. 
> Then, when I wanted to insert something between 10 and 20, I would 
> simply call it "15" and it would Just Work.  Granted, that only left 
> me with 9 possible insertions between 10 and 20, but that normally 
> was plenty.
> 
> Can Asterisk work in the same way with some minor tweaking?  This 
> would really break almost nothing, and would be completely compatible 
> with existing extensions.conf file syntaxes while allowing some 
> additional sanity to be introduced.
> 
> The argument of "we can only go to 100 for any priority list, so 
> jumping by 10 only allows for ten priorities in a given extension" is 
> not valid, since you can jump by 5, or by 2, or you can use the 
> old-fashioned exactly sequential method as well.  My response #2 to 
> this is that the +101 syntax could be altered with a global variable 
> that says "BUSYJUMP=1001" and the default would be "BUSYJUMP=101"  My 
> response #3 to this is "Get rid of busyjump entirely and use a 
> result-code dependant jump (see my other mail of a few minutes ago on 
> this.)"
> 
> JT
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
-- 
Steven Critchfield <critch at basesys.com>