On 2012-04-12 10:19, Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2012-04-12 at 10:00 +0100, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
Would it be sensible to see about changing that dagger to something else
- say the string " (expanded)" in a smaller font, to make things rather
more obvious to those glancing at the docs.
As long
On 2012-04-12 at 10:00 +0100, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> Theres been a couple of cases recently where people have been caught out
> by whether a configuration option uses expanded string value or the
> literal string.
>
> Currently we mark whether or not an option expands its value by adding a
>
Theres been a couple of cases recently where people have been caught out
by whether a configuration option uses expanded string value or the
literal string.
Currently we mark whether or not an option expands its value by adding a
dagger symbol to the type - see the first couple of entries at
http
