On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:14:59AM +0100, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 19:06 -0500, Barry Leiba wrote:
I still wonder whether there ought to be a way to test for the presence
of an extension, rather than only to have the choice of *requiring* it
or not using it at all. I can see a script wanting, for example, to
send a notification IF the Notify extension is available, but not
wanting the script to FAIL if it's not.
it certainly seems useful to me. we could introduce an action, like:
require "environment";
# or perhaps a separate extension.
want "notify";
if environment "extensions" "notify" {
....
}
I must be missing something, but why would you want to write scripts
that way? Which application would profit from this extension?
I can imagine that a way to find out which extensions are available
is very useful for GUIs generating Sieve code, or even humans, but
for scripts?
If I used a GUI and it offers notifications, then I expect they are
available.
I don't think the base specification unconditionally allows dead
code blocks that contain unknown extensions, like:
if false {
unknown_extension;
}
Does the environment extension focus on the above usage and is it OK if
it enforces implementations to allow unknown extensions in dead code?
Michael