Ohh, non-emptyness instead of plain definedness? Like in most shells:
`${foo-bar}` versus `${foo:-bar}`...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1756#issuecomme
More thinking out loud, `%{foo|bar}` as a shorthand for the actual expression
(`%["%{?foo}" || "bar")
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1756#issuecomment-9
Just thinking out loud:
```
%{!foo:bar}
%{?foo-bar}
```
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1756#issuecomment-950854913
A common use-case with macros is wanting to fallback to a default value if the
macro in question doesn't exist, eg "use value of %foo if defined, or 5
otherwise". This seems unnecessarily clumsy in the current macro
implementation: `%{?foo}%{!?foo:5}` and the new expression stuff doesn't seem
t
