Re: [exim] RFC: bool_lax{} naming

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Phil Pennock <exim-users@???> wrote
> On 2010-06-14 at 19:22 -0400, John Jetmore wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Martin A. Brooks <martin@???> wrote:
>> > On Mon, June 14, 2010 23:02, Phil Pennock wrote:
>> >> Folks,
>> >>
>> >> Before 4.73 is released and the name becomes forevermore locked in
>> >> place, does anyone have any better recommendations on the name for the
>> >> new bool_lax{} expansion condition?

>> well, since bool_the_way_everyone_expects_it_to_work_anyway{} seems
>> kind of long...
>
> *reeeaally*?  Everyone expects the booleanness of "00" to be True?
>
> That's a very interesting quirk of the Routers.  The ACL definition came

First, after seeing all the suggestions, I kind of like bool_lax.
It's short and to the point. That said, if we're really that
concerned about naming, why not bool_routers or bool_rtr, since that
speaks directly to the reason it exists?

--John