Re: Arguments to checkgroups control messages

Julien ÉLIE wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>>>> These lines are equivalent:
>>>>
>>>>    Control: checkgroups de !de.alt #2009021301
>>>>    Control: checkgroups !de.alt de #2009021301
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it should be highlighted in the text (so that it is not
>>>> the last matching entry that prevails for each newsgroup).
>
> The problems comes from that, in RFC 3977 (NNTP), when something
> is matched, it is always because of the last entry:
>
>  4.2.  Wildmat Semantics
>
>   A wildmat is tested against a string and either matches or does not
>   match.  To do this, each constituent <wildmat-pattern> is matched
>   against the string, and the rightmost pattern that matches is
>   identified.  If that <wildmat-pattern> is not preceded with "!", the
>   whole wildmat matches.  If it is preceded by "!", or if no <wildmat-
>   pattern> matches, the whole wildmat does not match.
>
>   For example, consider the wildmat "a*,!*b,*c*":
>
>   o  The string "aaa" matches because the rightmost match is with "a*".
>
>   o  The string "abb" does not match because the rightmost match is
>      with "*b".
>
>
> In RFC 5537 (USEPRO), the order does not matter and the semantics
> of "de !de.alt" works differently.
> That's why this way of parsing should be better highlighted in USEPRO.
>
It seems to me that since we're incompatible with something people will 
also know about (wildmat), flagging the incompatibility is important.

We can't go on making changes in AUTH48 (it's never going to be 
perfect), but if there's another reason for a delay and a diff, adding a 
sentence pointing out the semantic difference would be good.

               Harald