[exim] RFC: bool_lax{} naming

Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Phil Pennock
Date:  
To: exim-users
Subject: [exim] RFC: bool_lax{} naming
Folks,

Before 4.73 is released and the name becomes forevermore locked in
place, does anyone have any better recommendations on the name for the
new bool_lax{} expansion condition?

There must be a better name, and bool_router{} isn't it.

I'm referring to these two items from the NewStuff for 4.73.

----------------------------8< cut here >8------------------------------
 8. There is a new expansion operator, bool_lax{}.  Where bool{} uses the ACL
    condition logic to determine truth/failure and will fail to expand many
    strings, bool_lax{} uses the router condition logic, where most strings
    do evaluate true.
    Note: bool{00} is false, bool_lax{00} is true.


9. Routers now support multiple "condition" tests,
----------------------------8< cut here >8------------------------------

Thanks,
-Phil