break appeared early in SER; so, it remained.<br>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.<br>there is also a "return" alternative for break.
<br><br>WL.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/6/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">SIP</b> <<a href="mailto:sip@arcdiv.com">sip@arcdiv.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Weiter Leiter wrote:<br>><br>><br>> On 8/6/07, *tzieleniewski* <<a href="mailto:tzieleniewski@o2.pl">tzieleniewski@o2.pl</a><br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:tzieleniewski@o2.pl">tzieleniewski@o2.pl</a>>> wrote:
<br>><br>> Hi,<br>><br>> Is there any difference in the brake and drop command behavior in<br>> ser.cfg??<br>><br>><br>> break stops execution of current route, resuming the next outer one
<br>> (if any), from where the current was invoked.<br>> drop stops execution of script.<br>><br>> WL.<br>I'm assuming these are SER 2.0 commands?<br><br>Is it possible to have come up with even more convoluted and
<br>non-intuitive names? Perhaps "frog" and "bunny" or "seratonin" and<br>"cuisinart" ? I mean, why stop with 'brake,' which is so close to being<br>'break' (the command one usually uses in a programming setting to escape
<br>a loop) and yet... isn't. Or drop... which really doesn't imply to me<br>'stop execution' as much as it implies ignore an incoming connection...<br>or perhaps delete a table.<br><br>N.<br></blockquote>
</div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>"C is a language that combines all the elegance and power of assembly language with all the readability and maintainability of assembly language."