------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167
--- Comment #21 from Philip Hazel <ph10@???> 2008-09-17 17:34:24 ---
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, Phil Pennock wrote:
> I think, on balance, at present I'm opposed to bool:varname as an expansion
> condition; a reasoned use-case for why we need it, or why it's cleaner, or
> strong support for bool:varname from someone like TF, NM or PH will see me
> provide a revised patch, but for now I stand by the current version (v2).
I'm with you. Quite apart from inventing a new syntax, if you have
bool:varname, you can test only one variable, whereas if you have
bool{...} the ... can be any arbitrary expansion string.
--
Configure bugmail:
http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
