On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, Phil Pennock wrote:
> 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).
I'm with you. Quite apart from inventing a new syntax, if you have
bool:varname, you can test only one variable, whereas if you have
bool{...} the ... can be any arbitrary expansion string.
--
Philip Hazel
--
## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details
at http://www.exim.org/ ##
