Re: [RFC] meta ematch

On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 10:14, Thomas Graf wrote:

Here's a revised patch. I fixed the numeric comparison issues and
added meta_obj instead of using meta_data to give a better impression
on the difference of a comparable object and meta data definitions.

I scanned the code very quickly; lets start with the big picture then i
will send some more comments:
Did i understand this correctly that a metamatch MUST have a lvalue +
rvalue pair?
What if all i wanted to say was 
..
ematch indev eth0

I only see one value there - does that become l or r? 

more comments coming - just ned some caffeine then i will stare.

cheers,
jamal