[Serusers] drop and brake in ser.cfg

[SIP]

'break' I could understand.

But not so much 'brake' 

Drop is... well... not so intuitive. Exit makes perfect sense. :)

Call me inflexible. ;)

N.


Weiter Leiter wrote:
> break appeared early in SER; so, it remained.
> drop is a tad newer (?) and probably appeared in the tradition of 
> packet filtering naming. there is also the more intuitive "exit" 
> alternative to it.
> there is also a "return" alternative for break.
>
> WL.
>
> On 8/6/07, *SIP* <sip at arcdiv.com <mailto:sip at arcdiv.com>> wrote:
>
>     Weiter Leiter wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On 8/6/07, *tzieleniewski* <tzieleniewski at o2.pl
>     <mailto:tzieleniewski at o2.pl>
>     > <mailto:tzieleniewski at o2.pl <mailto:tzieleniewski at o2.pl>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Hi,
>     >
>     >     Is there any difference in the brake and drop command
>     behavior in
>     >     ser.cfg??
>     >
>     >
>     > break stops execution of current route, resuming the next outer one
>     > (if any), from where the current was invoked.
>     > drop stops execution of script.
>     >
>     > WL.
>     I'm assuming these are SER 2.0 commands?
>
>     Is it possible to have come up with even more convoluted and
>     non-intuitive names? Perhaps "frog" and "bunny"  or "seratonin" and
>     "cuisinart" ?  I mean, why stop with 'brake,' which is so close to
>     being
>     'break' (the command one usually uses in a programming setting to
>     escape
>     a loop) and yet... isn't. Or drop... which really doesn't imply to me
>     'stop execution' as much as it implies ignore an incoming
>     connection...
>     or perhaps delete a table.
>
>     N.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> "C is a language that combines all the elegance and power of assembly 
> language with all the readability and maintainability of assembly 
> language."