Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Hi Alexey,
--On Monday, April 14, 2003 11:30 PM -0600 Alexey Melnikov
<mel(_at_)messagingdirect(_dot_)com> wrote:
|> 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
| exist.
Alternatively, we could allow a ':nofail' parameter to include so that a
user could explicitly turn on silent failures for missing include files.
Thus if a user really wanted to do something along the lines of what Rob
proposed, they could do that, e.g.:
include :nofail "my_optional_vacation_script";
I don't think you should be that flexible. Just pick one way.
Alexey
__________________________________________
R & D, ACI Worldwide/MessagingDirect
Watford, UK
Work Phone: +44 1923 81 2877
Home Page: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel
IETF standard
related pages: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel/devel/Links.html
I speak for myself only, not for my employer.
__________________________________________