On 5/14/04 2:33 AM, Barry Wainwright wrote: > On 14/5/04 4:43 am, "John Siracusa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But seriously folks, in what century can we expect nested logical >> expressions in rules? Because maintaining 500 rules like this: >> >> 1. if sender is a and subject contains foo ... >> 2. if sender is b and subject contains foo ... >> 3. if sender is c and subject contains foo ... >> 4. if sender is d and subject contains foo ... >> ... >> 499. if sender is se and subject contains foo ... >> 500. if sender is sf and subject contains foo ... >> >> gets really, really, really old...especially when the "foo" clause changes >> :P > > So, assign the senders a category, assign incoming messages the category of > their senders (an option in prefs), then set a single rule: > > If category is 'xyz' and subject contains 'foo'...
That gets a wee bit more tricky for non-toy-example rules like "if ((a and (b or c) or d) and (c or (e and f and ((g or h) and I or j)))) or (x and y)" You just have to write the "nested logic GUI" once. Without it, users have to construct work-arounds and custom scripts each time they want to do something "complex." I know this is a losing battle, but it really boggles my mind that this feature is eternally confined to the same bin as allowing raw hex-editing of message source or whatever. Even my mother, who has no idea what Boolean logic is, understands that she "can't" set up certain kinds of filter rules. She can describe what she wants in plain english, but quickly realizes that it "can't be done" if her only choices in the rules UI are "all rules" or "any rules." Maybe she still wouldn't know how to do it with a nesting logic GUI, but at least I could explain it to her. There's no way I can get her to write an AppleScript over the phone... -John -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
