Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> | 3 How should non-exist include scripts be handled?
> error at compile-time or run-time depending on the implementation.
I'd argue that these should be interpreted to be empty scripts,
since I suspect runtime errors could be more confusing to the end
user. (Since generally users don't see explicit error notices
from sieve runs).
The advantage of interpreting it as an empty script is you can
have your main script include stuff like "my-vacation-script"
which then can just be deleted when you come back, as opposed to
having to modify your main script.
heh. I'd prefer to keep my vacation-script around, and just disable
it from the main script. I see your point, though.
I guess the issue is what does the user expect to happen, and I
don't really like causing one script to start failing just because
an included script dissapears.
how about typos? those will be hard to find.
From my own experience: I came across a C compiler that was treating missing
include files as empty. I was very surprised as a user. So, I am in favor of
being explicit and fail interpretation/compilation when a file doesn't
This is my feeling as well.
Kenneth Murchison Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer 21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26 Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key-- http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp