Alexander V Alekseev wrote:
>> > If I need unbalanced {}, I would use \} . But you advise to use
>> > escapes when having balanced syntaxis, and unescaped {} when
>> > unbalanced! Don't you think, it's wrong?
>>
>>I don't "advise" this, i told you what your patch will break!
>
> Every bug is usefull. It's very simple to invent example of
> usefullness of any trouble. But it will stay a bug.
Man, this isn't a bug, this is just a "we don't care about".
>> > I've read the code. I've read the documentation. The code doesn't
>> > follow the documentation. I've patched the code.
>>
>>Doesn't seem so, does the docs say anything about balanced {}?
>>I don't think so.
>>
>>Again, we are talking about exim's configuration-language, not about any
>>real programming-language, exim is not a Compiler, but a MTA.
>
> 1. All examples in spec.txt have balanced {}.
Sure, but this is the usual behaviour "escape a char if it could cause
trouble", again, we are NOT talking about C/Perl/XXX.
> 2. There are no words about the possibility of unbalansed {}.
If the docs would mention EVERY possibility, you would need 10 years to
read them, and Phil would need 40 years to write it.
> 3. Can you exactly document exim's behaviour now? Especially, if lookup
> requests return something with {} ? Or using lookup in conditional
> expressions? I suppose, now exim's behaviour is completely unpredictable.
> It's undocumented. It's a BUG.
It will not be better with your patch, think about it twice.
You are just thinking about balancing brackets, but they don't need to
be balanced, if they are escaped.
ciao
