On 2010-06-14 at 19:22 -0400, John Jetmore wrote: > 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{} ?
Lazy says deferred evaluation to me, which is no more true for this
expansion condition than any other.
> well, since bool_the_way_everyone_expects_it_to_work_anyway{} seems
> kind of long...
*reeeaally*? Everyone expects the booleanness of "00" to be True?
That's a very interesting quirk of the Routers. The ACL definition came
later so I tend to think that it reflected a lesson learnt. At least,
that's why I'd change things around like that. But PH is smarter than I
am anyway, so imagining that he'd do things for the same reasons as me
is hubris.
> Hmm, antonyms of strict... How about bool_lenient{}, bool_tolerant{},
> bool_liberal{}, bool_easy{}?
_liberal somewhat works. Is it too long, for the variant which, as you
portray it, people commonly want? (I've no idea what people want; when
I wrote the bool{} patch originally, it was based on people wanting to
be able to use yes/no in ACL variables and then reference them inside
and/or constructs).
