On 1/17/01 4:17:40 PM, Philip Hazel put fingers to keyboard and wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Bruce Bowler wrote:
>
> > is likely to lead to confusion. In particular, having a : in one ACL place
> > mean 'and' and in another ACL place mean 'or' is going to confuse the
> > heck out of some people. Would it be that much more work to explicitly
> > spell out 'and' and 'or'? It's only between 1 and 4 more characters to
> > type :-) Alternately, how about the C style & and | for 'and' and 'or'.
>
> I take your point and will think about this. The thing is, these things
> are just lists like all Exim lists. I don't want to have to introduce
> fancy syntax (=> implementing fancy parsing code) just for this special
> case. I certainly don't want to have general boolean conditions - that
> is exactly what the ACLs get away from.
>
> Perhaps the secret is in the explaining. If I avoid using the words
> "and" and "or" ...
Perhaps true. maybe it should say, in the first instance, something
along the lines of "all the conditions must be met" and in the second
case, "if any of the conditions are met". No "and/or" and significantly
less room for confusion (at least IMHO).
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bruce Bowler +1.207.633.9600 BBowler@???
Doing what is right isn't the problem, it's knowing what is right.
- Lyndon B. Johnson
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
