> Why don't they both use the same syntax for referencing custom fields?
I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing - the REST syntax for CF editing is nice and simple for scripting - the curly brackets would make things more complicated to parse and generally use. When I was deciding on a format for displaying CFs for the AT REST code, I automatically chose "CF_" (changed to "CF-" now to match RT 3.6.0) because it's easy to parse in the REST code and easy to edit in the CLI. All that shell escaping for curly brackets when you're scripting would make the REST interface less convenient to use ... PK _______________________________________________ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com We're hiring! Come hack Perl for Best Practical: http://bestpractical.com/about/jobs.html
