From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from kerhand.co.uk (_smtpd@82-69-137-214.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.137.214]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8HE869g012174 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:08:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (1000@localhost [IPv6:::1]) by kerhand.co.uk (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id LWfXOveT for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:07:40 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:07:40 +0059 From: Jason McIntyre To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: WARNING: blocks badly nested: Oc breaks Op Message-ID: <20100917140804.GA9070@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> References: <20100911074624.GC5369@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> <20100916212333.GB5462@usta.de> <20100916222747.GB30810@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> <20100917105010.GB7536@britannica.bec.de> X-Mailinglist: mdocml-discuss Reply-To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100917105010.GB7536@britannica.bec.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:50:11PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:27:23PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > i don;t totally understand. Oo/Oc need not happen on the same line, so i > > consider it fair game that i can stick Oc on the end of an Op line. > > Your example did not put the Oc on a separate line from the Op. So yes, > there is a difference between > > .Oo > .Op ... > .Oc > > and > > .Oo > .Op .. Oc > > and as Ingo mentioned, as soon as you replace .Op with .Sq for example, > it becomes obvious. > so i should not do it. fair enough. in that case the diff you (ingo) mailed me for pfctl.8 is ok me. jmc -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv