Re: statement changes suggestions

[Jan-Henrik Haukeland]

Martin Pala <address@hidden> writes:

> What about to move FAILED behind the target specification, as it is
> in other tests 

When I implemented this now, I found out that it somewhat looks better
to use "failed" first because the port statement may be a very long
statement, so using "failed" at the end may make it disappear. 

Besides using "failed" first also clearly indicate that the if
statement is a binary statement, that is; either it failed or it
worked.

Anyway, FAILED is a noise keyword so you may place it anywhere you
like :-) But in the documentation I use this style based on the above
argumentation.


BTW. Please, Martin, don't let me stop you from check in your changes
to monit.pod :-) I have checked in the small part I have added now.
I'm mostly thinking philosophically about the monit.pod now and I will
start to work with it and try to improve stuff when we are almost
ready with the 4.0 release. That is when all the cards are on the
table and we only have testing left.

-- 
Jan-Henrik Haukeland