On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, 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_softfail ?
> 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
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Dave Lugo dlugo@??? No spam, thanks.
Are you the police? . . . No ma'am, we're sysadmins.
--------------------------------------------------------
