Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Workers
(January 1997)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: More musings on a general access restriction mechanism
From: Dave Wolfe <dwolfe @ risc . sps . mot . com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 09:48:55 -0600 (CST)
To: brozen @ webdreams . com (Brock Rozen)
Cc: majordomo-workers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <Pine.OSF.3.95.970107015947.23400B-100000@webdreams.com> from "Brock Rozen" at Jan 7, 97 02:01:27 am
Reply-to: Dave Wolfe <david_wolfe @ risc . sps . mot . com>

[ Brock Rozen writes: ]
> 
> On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Rob Jenson wrote:
> 
> > subscribe : bsps.mot.com : allow
> > subscribe : bmcu.mot.com : allow
> > subscribe : aol.com : consult		# superfluous 
> > subscribe : ALL : consult
> 
> >From my understanding, the last subscribe:ALL would negate all previous
> parameters.  If "commands" are handled in order, then the ALL consult
> would have to go first.

No, it's an "or" short-circuit expression, not unlike C or Perl:

allow(sps.mot.com) || allow(mcu.mot.com) || consult(aol.com) || consult(ALL)

First match takes action and skips the other tests.

-- 
 Dave Wolfe



Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: More musings on a general access restriction mechanism
From: Rob Jenson <robjen@spotch.com>
Next: Re: More musings on a general access restriction mechanism
From: Brock Rozen <brozen@webdreams.com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: More musings on a general access restriction mechanism
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@hpc.uh.edu>
Next: Re: More musings on a general access restriction mechanism
From: Brock Rozen <brozen@webdreams.com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com