------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167 --- Comment #20 from Phil Pennock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-17 01:30:32 --- Jakob: bool{$whatever} is not new syntax, merely a new conditional operator. Now, bool:foo is new. The reason for def: is that it's an existence test, as well as a definedness tests. With def:, there's no errors for unknown variables, no expansion failures. I don't see the justification for doing this for anything other than meta-checks on the variable itself, rather than the value of the variable. Aside from !, all other ECOND operators use {braces}, including the unary condition tests (exists{filename}, ldapauth{query}, radius{auth-str}). For the expansion operators, things are different. But those don't affect this bool test case. I think, on balance, at present I'm opposed to bool:varname as an expansion condition; a reasoned use-case for why we need it, or why it's cleaner, or strong support for bool:varname from someone like TF, NM or PH will see me provide a revised patch, but for now I stand by the current version (v2). -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
