[Ulf Lamping <ulf.lamping@xxxxxx>]

Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:

> Yes that was the technical reason why it previously did not work.
> The pratcical reason was   no one had been bothered enough to fix it
> previously.
>
> 5 minutes ago i checked in a quick hack that should implement
> your suggestion.
>
> I never fixed it before since the manpage mentions it and no one really
> complained/used the feature before.
> Thanks for the suggestion.
> Please test the CVS version it should work.
>  
This seems to work and is much better than before :-)

> Maybe ulf wants to add the check field thing that it is a real field value
> and do the
> red/gree/white feedback thing for the field textbox it as well?
>
>  
That wouldn't be too easy :-(

For the current syntax check of the filter field, I've simply used the 
filter string as a whole, and asked the "filter engine" if it's valid.

The case here is a bit different. The string cannot be easily checked, 
as it must be a field which can be a resonable value for this case.
I don't know a function in the "filter engine" which tell's me this 
valid/invalid result we need here, although it might be available somewhere.

I don't have much knowledge on the filtering engine, but someone might 
help me on this. When we have the function outlined above,
the colouring itself will be really easy to do.

Regards, ULFL