[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Draft for script 'include' capability

2003-04-14 13:37:53

On Sun, 14 Apr 2003, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:

I prefer
  include :global "spam-tests";
  include "/global/spam-tests";

the default should be to look in the personal folder.

I like this.

| 4 Open Issues:
|     1   Should we allow URIs to point to scripts to include?

the possibility of reliance on external resources should not be

I'm assuming your argument against this is "lack of utility" which I
suspect I can agree with.

|     2   Should we allow string lists as argument to include?

I don't see the usefulness of it, but I don't care either way.

|     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

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.


Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer
PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu * 
Version: 3.12
GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K-
w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e h r- y?