Re: [exim] RFC: bool_lax{} naming

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Martin A. Brooks <martin@???> wrote:
> On Mon, June 14, 2010 23:02, Phil Pennock wrote:
>> 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?
>
> bool_lazy{} ?

well, since bool_the_way_everyone_expects_it_to_work_anyway{} seems
kind of long...

Hmm, antonyms of strict... How about bool_lenient{}, bool_tolerant{},
bool_liberal{}, bool_easy{}?