So I should point out that this isn't a working group, just for the sake of
completeness; it's just a mailing list, despite the name.
Sorry, I think I was the one that mixed this up.
I understand the difference, but still hope the opinions expressed
on this list are considered in the process of making a public spec
on Sieve.
Regarding exceptions, I'm against them.
In the context of the sieve language, I can understand this.
Still, there might occur error conditions that may have to be
handled in some way, as an exception or something else. But I
am not in a position to give examples so I will shut my mouth.
:)
Those are the only exceptional cases I can think of that can come up.
Having exception handling in a language without loops, subroutines, or
variables seems like overkill.
Yes, you have a point there.
Regarding Python-style indents, I'm one of the people who doesn't think it's
"clean" and am against it.
Oh, I see. I have done C-programming as long as I can remember.
The curly brackets offered a formatting freedom, but also allowed
some programmers to abuse the de facto style of programming,
sometimes making the code close to unreadable.
The beauty of Python is that the code is always readable, regardless
of the programmer's personal style.
Also, dropping the programmer hat and putting on the non-technical
hat (my mother is a good example), Python style is more consistent.
It is less intuitive for my mother to understand why curly brackets
is sometimes missing and sometimes required.
Anyway, I'm not arguing to change Sieve's programming style.
Regard my comment about curly brackets as a personal reflecton.
--
Tomas Fasth