[Asterisk-Dev] Function format

[Olle E. Johansson]

Leif Madsen - Certified Asterisk Consultant wrote:
> On 5/20/05, Russell Bryant <russelb at clemson.edu> wrote:
>>Tilghman Lesher wrote:
>>>I'm generally against trying to change the function syntax at this point
>>>in time, unless someone comes up with a really nice alternative syntax.
>>
>>I agree.  I really don't even this will be that much of an issue once we
>>have this merged.
>>
>>http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=4323
>>
>>I believe the only thing left is to figure out a good name for it that
>>will not be confused with the Macro application.
> 
> I'll go ahead and agree that 4323 is probably a better way of going
> about simplifying the use of functions. I'm not entirely convinced the
> syntax for declaring the function calls is the best (declared in an
> external file? gross), but the concept is awesome.
> 
This is good for each administrator, but will lead to each administrator
writing his own configuration "language" or set of functions - which
might be a good or a bad thing. It will be harder working with different
Asterisk installations since each one will have produced their own set
of functions that you need to learn before you do anything. There was a
language called Forth that worked like this. After a few weeks, no one
else than yourself could understand your code - you basically
constructed the language as you went along. Having two programmers
working together in that kind of environment was impossible and the mere
thought of adding a third one was not thinkable.

I still think the syntax for functions is bad, and adding a layer of
patches on top of it does not solve the basic problem. I haven't had
time to put my thinking cap on and come up with something better either
- still trying to figure out why I like the old way better...

/O