[cleaning my mailbox of unanswered suggestions...]
Barry Leiba <leiba(_at_)watson(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> writes:
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 09:21 -0700, Ned Freed wrote:
if anyof (header :is "Cc" "", not exists "Cc")
This is actually clearer to read IMO, and is probably how I would code it
if
I ever wanted such a test.
Indeed. And so why don't we wrap up this too-long discussion this way?:
1. *Document* that string comparisons against headers MUST NOT match
absent headers.
I've updated 5.7p3, second sentence to now read:
However, if the named header is not present, it does not match any
key, including the empty key.
Look good to me.
2. *Document* that the preferred way to test for a header that is either
empty or absent is as Ned wrote above.
I've added as a new paragraph at the end of 5.7:
The preferred way to test whether a given header is either empty or
absent is to combine an "exists" test and a "header" test:
anyof (header :is "Cc" "", not exists "Cc")
WFM as well.
Ned