From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from jazzband.ncsc.mil (jazzband.ncsc.mil [144.51.5.4]) by tycho.ncsc.mil (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h8OIYusJ019602 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jazzband.ncsc.mil (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jazzband.ncsc.mil with ESMTP id h8OIU2G6003867 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:34:55 GMT Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:17:31 +0100 From: Dale Amon To: Russell Coker Cc: Dale Amon , Stephen Smalley , SELinux Mail List Subject: Re: Some minor thoughts on syntax/semantics Message-ID: <20030924151731.GL21997@vnl.com> References: <20030923150926.GG21997@vnl.com> <200309242334.55203.russell@coker.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200309242334.55203.russell@coker.com.au> Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 11:34:55PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > The current syntax seems intuitive enough to me. I learnt how to write SE > policy by reading the existing policy and playing with it and it never seemed > difficult. The reason I brought it up was that Steve's paper states things in English exactly the way I did, which means you have to reverse the second two elements in your mind when reading the descriptions. I can't say that I really see anything about the language that is object oriented per-se, it looks like a very simple declarative configuration language to me. C++ it ain't. (thank god) :-) Just some thoughts after coming back to it after over a year and a half... -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.