Re: [exim-dev] Expanded options vs non-expanded

On 2010-09-02 at 22:30 +0200, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> Phil Pennock <exim-dev@???> (Do 02 Sep 2010 07:13:12 CEST):
> > Or perhaps "only booleans which are somehow intrinsic to the meaning are
> > not expanded"?
>
> What is "somehow". I'd say, only if there is a very technical reason not
> to expand, than no expansion should an can be done…

I think that the consequences of having "unseen", aka "seen = no" be
expanded, are difficult to predict and likely to lead to debugging hell.
Of course, that could be said of any option, it's all a question of
degree.

So while I think that "everything" is probably right, I offered another
approach for people to consider too.