------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167 --- Comment #21 from Philip Hazel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-17 17:34:24 --- 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. -- 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/ ##
