Rule-based preferences - format marker RFC, etc.

[Harald Meland]

[Ian Clatworthy]

> Martin Pool wrote:
>> We plan to put a namespace in the section headers something like
>> 
>>  [name *.py]
>> 
>> ('name' vs 'glob' vs 'pattern' etc Ian is going to ponder)
>
> Latest version attached. It provides:
>
> * a namespace - I've gone with 'for' for readability reasons

This seems a little strange to me.  I thought the idea of introducing
this namespace keyword was to have the keyword somehow describe *how*
the rest of the section name goes about matching a subset of your
tree.

Are you saying that this "for" keyword is meant to match the behaviour
of e.g. a shell-script for loop?  If so, the support for "RE:" you
mentioned earlier seems a poor match (no pun intended) to this shell
analogy.

(BTW, given that we're going to have keywords anyway, wouldn't it make
sense to separate the regular glob behavior of this "for" keyword from
the extended regexp-match behaviour?)

And, when you sometime in the future decide that you need to expand
your keyword set, starting out with "for" seems very generic; if you
e.g. decide that you want to allow users to specify their files by
file-id, you add e.g. 'file-id' -- and then risk confusing users by
having one match-mechanism-centered keyword and one "some kind of
iteration, I guess" keyword.  How will users know that the "for"
keyword doesn allow iteration over e.g. file-id prefixes?
-- 
Harald