Re: [PATCH libnftables] Add support for ct set

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 02:54:35PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 01:43:43PM +0000, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 02:33:06PM +0100, Kristian Evensen wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> wrote:
> > > > No, I'm refering to the (ab)use of the expression. Anything not returning
> > > > data is not an expression but a statement.
> > > 
> > > Ok, then I follow :) I followed the naming in meta, but I agree. What
> > > would be a good naming convetion? I thought of something like
> > > nft_expr_stmt_*. It is a bit clumsy, but it is at least clear that the
> > > struct can be used to represent both an expression and a statement.
> > 
> > nft_ct_stmt? This is what we use in nftables f.i. in case of meta.
> 
> Perhaps nft_ct_instr? So we can identify this as the nftables
> instruction-set.

Well, expressions also belong to the instruction set. A statement is
is one (more specific) case of an instruction, as are expressions.
Why introduce new terminology that isn't used anywhere else so far
if statement is the exact description of what this is and is already
used by nftables.