Benny Amorsen wrote:
Imagine that you have this code:
exten = _X!,n,Set(foo=${QUEUE_WAITING_COUNT(${QueueName})}))
If ${QueueName} happens to be unset, this will cause a warning:
[Jul 22 14:26:17] ERROR[8114]: app_queue.c:5187
queue_function_queuewaitingcount: QUEUE_WAITING_COUNT
On Thursday 23 July 2009 07:24:46 Leif Madsen wrote:
Benny Amorsen wrote:
Imagine that you have this code:
exten = _X!,n,Set(foo=${QUEUE_WAITING_COUNT(${QueueName})}))
If ${QueueName} happens to be unset, this will cause a warning:
[Jul 22 14:26:17] ERROR[8114]: app_queue.c:5187
Imagine that you have this code:
exten = _X!,n,Set(foo=${QUEUE_WAITING_COUNT(${QueueName})}))
If ${QueueName} happens to be unset, this will cause a warning:
[Jul 22 14:26:17] ERROR[8114]: app_queue.c:5187
queue_function_queuewaitingcount: QUEUE_WAITING_COUNT requires an
argument: queuename
Amorsen
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:44 AM
To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Subject: [asterisk-users] ExecIf and empty variables (early evaluation)
Imagine that you have this code:
exten = _X!,n,Set(foo=${QUEUE_WAITING_COUNT(${QueueName})}))
If ${QueueName} happens to be unset
Benny Amorsen schrieb:
Imagine that you have this code:
exten = _X!,n,Set(foo=${QUEUE_WAITING_COUNT(${QueueName})}))
If ${QueueName} happens to be unset, this will cause a warning:
[Jul 22 14:26:17] ERROR[8114]: app_queue.c:5187
queue_function_queuewaitingcount: QUEUE_WAITING_COUNT
On Wednesday 22 July 2009 08:30:03 Danny Nicholas wrote:
You should submit this as a bug. It may or may not get fixed, but it
definitely won't until someone reports it or takes it upon themselves to
fix it.
Don't bother. It's not fixable.
--
Tilghman Teryl
with Peter, Cottontail,
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] ExecIf and empty variables (early evaluation)
On Wednesday 22 July 2009 08:30:03 Danny Nicholas wrote:
You should submit this as a bug. It may or may not get fixed, but it
definitely won't until someone reports
While I can't be sure this is correct, I'd assume there are 2 pieces
to executing a line of code, the first one does all the expansion and
variable replacement, and the second one actually executes the line.
From the behavior I'd have to guess that INC() is handled by first
part and not the
On Wednesday 22 July 2009 13:56:39 Ira wrote:
Danny Nicholas wrote:
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Wednesday 22 July 2009 08:30:03 Danny Nicholas wrote:
You should submit this as a bug. It may or may not get fixed, but it
definitely won't until someone reports it or takes it upon
