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 -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
