21 nov 2007 kl. 10.01 skrev Luigi Rizzo: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 09:28:55AM +0100, Olle E Johansson wrote: >>> >>> Really, this is not an area where you can afford playing and putting >>> in >>> small patches to see how they fix one or the other problem. >>> The correctness of extension matching is something that people >>> really must rely on, because in the end it is directly involved >>> with security, billing and so on. >>> >> One thing that has to be considered as well if we redesign is >> alphanumeric > > There is nothing preventing alphanumeric extensions at least in the > old matching algorithm - the only annoyance is the need to 'escape' > some characters ( _ N Z X / come to mind ) as [N] [Z] etc. to > override their special meaning on asterisk patterns. Well, you can't properly match [EMAIL PROTECTED] today. Or give ranges like [A-Ö]xp[0-3]
> But then, this is trivial to overcome by providing an alternative > syntax for extensions (and supporting both in parallel is easy) > and besides all regexp implementations have their own special > characters. That was our proposal. Let's find a URL so you can check it. http://edvina.net/asterisk/alphanumericextensions.pdf May 2005 :-) TTT - Things Take Time... /O _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
