Re: [exim] RFC: bool_lax{} naming

Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2010-06-14 at 20:34 -0400, Dave Lugo wrote:
>> 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 ?
>
> But it never fails. It's always true/false, where soft-fail to me means
> "defer".
>
> -Phil
>

Then:

bool_fuzzy    bool_fuzz

or

bool_naive    bool_trust

or

bool_gull    bool_gullible

or just

boolish        (as in Bullish)

Bill