On 2012-04-12 at 10:00 +0100, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> Theres been a couple of cases recently where people have been caught out
> by whether a configuration option uses expanded string value or the
> literal string.
>
> Currently we mark whether or not an option expands its value by adding a
> dagger symbol to the type - see the first couple of entries at
>
> http://www.exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch14.html#SECTalomo
>
> Would it be sensible to see about changing that dagger to something else
> - say the string " (expanded)" in a smaller font, to make things rather
> more obvious to those glancing at the docs.
As long as it's output format-specific, I'm okay with that. It just
won't fit in the plain text output.
Of course, at this point it might be worth instead explicitly marking
those options which are *not* expanded.
> [I'm also wondering about the idea of trying to grab a complete option
> list from the source code and comparing it to that in the documentation,
> but thats another ramble]
I did a sweep a couple of releases ago, to make sure OptionLists.txt was
up-to-date; I don't recall if I cross-referenced the main docs
Expanded-or-not requires more investigation for every option. :/
-Phil
