Re: [NSE] Better Handling for Require Errors

[Patrik Karlsson <patrik () cqure net>]

On Jun 12, 2011, at 4:12 AM, Patrick Donnelly wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Patrick Donnelly <batrick () batbytes com> wrote:
> > As I see it we can do one of three things:
> >
> > (a) Go back to the old system.
> > (b) Always print an error message.
> > (c) Accept that require may be silenced for some border cases where we
> > don't want it silenced. Script authors should be testing with -d...
> >
> > I'm partial to (c). I don't really like (a). I think (b) defeats the
> > entire point.
> >
> > I'm open to suggestions...
>
> I just thought of another possibility. Since we added the
> stdnse.require function which is just the original function. Maybe
> instead we can keep require the same and add a stdnse.silent_require
> (so reverse them). Then people would use:
>
> stdnse.silent_require "openssl"
>
> I think that might be the best approach. What do you all think?

I think this sounds like the best solution to.
This way we can still detect my typos while avoiding the nasty pcall and if-statement stuff.

> -- 
> - Patrick Donnelly
> _______________________________________________
> Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
> http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
> Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/


//Patrik
--
Patrik Karlsson
http://www.cqure.net
http://www.twitter.com/nevdull77

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/