On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:11:19AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
In addition to Ned's comments (which I tend to agree with), does
implementing this sort of folder semantic on a per-message basis even
make any sense?
Let's presume the script:
if envelope :all :contains "to" "rjs3+a@" {
fileinto "INBOX.foo";
} elsif envelope :all :contains "to" "rjs3+b@" {
fileinto :keep-maximum-storage 100k "INBOX.foo";
}
Does this mean the script only enforces the limit when an "rjs3+b" message
arrives? If so, is that even useful?
That does look like that is what that script would do, and no, it's
probably not useful. I would call that a bad script.
Well-defined syntax shouldn't let you write a "bad script".
When one
provides facilities in a language, one is not personally expected to
debug every script that can be written in it.
There's always a conflict between exposing and encapsulating language
facilities. For example, the original poster had the notion of adding
a folder definition that would ensure that all operations into that
folder would operate the same way. I wouldn't want that: I generally
go for the low-level granularity that lets the script writer have
complete control (and responsibility for their own errors).
(In my own implementation I have other ways of dealing with that
conflict anyway.)
mm
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer
PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * rjs3(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu *
412.268.7456
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----
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+++ X- R@ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++ h+ r- y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----