ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com writes:
> I believe there was a time when we didn't want to refer to variables
> in the vacation draft bevcause it was assumed variables would take
> much longer to complete. That's no longer true - variables is in last
> call while we're still fine tuning vacation. So how about simply
> referring to the variables document and say that any hash SHOULD
> cover the unexpanded :subject and reason arguments?
Sound good, but since everyone else is being pedantic I get to go too.
Does the unexpanded subject strip Re:, or will I get another vacation
message if I reply to the first vacation message?
I'm full of drugs right now to treat a case of bacterial gastroenteritis so I
may be even more clueless than usual, but this makes no sense to me at all. I'm
talking about the argument to the :subject parameter before any sort of
variable expansion has been done. This means the subject of the message being
responded to is not part of the calculation, and this in turn means the value
is going to be the same regardless of whether vacation is responding to some
random message or to a response to a vacation message.
Am I missing something here?
Ned