On 10 May 1997 kjj(_at_)primenet(_dot_)com wrote:
Tim Showalter <tjs(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu> writes:
I won't change the word "sort" to "autofile" as I find that to be worse, but
I think the section might be a little vague. Can someone give me a wrong
interpretation of the section? Or is it better to change "sort" to
Filter tends to imply altering something. That might not be appropriate
in this context.
I don't think filter implys altering anything; the term has been in use in
Can you offer a counterproposal? I can't see another good way to do it; the
syntax errors falling through cause too many problems. Furthermore, the
design of the language allows one if clause to stop processing; aborting out
of that if clause to allow the rest of the script to run would make it
very difficult to predict control flow during a syntax error.
Expressed in this way, I'm willing to agree that it's acceptable
behaviour. If that's the goal of the statement in the document, I would
like to see verbage in the document stating the reasoning. Without such
an explanation, I think the behaviour would be viewed in a poor light.
It might also serve to inhibit non-compliant implementations.
I don't think inhibit is the right word.
In any case, it is the goal of the statement in the document. I have this
idea that someone will case off all their mail except for things that look
like bombs and toss 'em. This would cause problems if anything had errors.
I could add some explanatory text to the document.
In general, I'd like to see more of the rationale of the design decisions
documented in the spec.
Isn't that very atypical for a standards document?