Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 18:55 +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Mark E. Mallett wrote:
4. Test hasflag
I'm having a hard time understanding what this test does in other than
simple cases.
> The "hasflag" test evaluates to true if any of the variables matches any
> flag name.
Does this mean "contains any of the flags listed in list-of-flags" ?
or "contains all of the flags listed in list-of-flags"?
or "matches (according to match-type) the concatenation of flags
contained in all of the list-of-flags strings, subject to canonical
re-ordering"?
"any flag name" means the first choice.
yes, this is in line with the behaviour of other tests, e.g.
address :localpart ["To", "Cc"] ["kjetilho", "alexey"]
Exactly.
Does each string in "list-of-flags" contain exactly one flag, or can
each string be a list of flags as in other usage?
The intention was to have the former. I will try to clarify.
if so, '[ "A B" ]' must be handled differently from '"A B"', which seems
to be in conflict with RFC 3028. see section 2.4.2.1:
You assume that a list-of-flags = ["A", "B"] is the same as ["A B"]. I
originally didn't make such assumption, but I might be convinced that
this is the right thing to do.
Conversely, in any case where a list of strings is appropriate, a
single string is allowed without being a member of a list: it is
equivalent to a list with a single member. This means that the test
`exists "To"' is equivalent to the test `exists ["To"]'.