Alexey Melnikov writes:
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
2. Even though a collation specification distinguishes between
"no-match" and "error", there's no requirement that all protocols
must. If the distinction between "no-match" and "error" is pointless
in e.g. sieve, can't simply sieve treat the two as equal? Ie.
"match" is true, "no-match" is false and "error" is false?
Yes, that is a possibility.
Maybe we should add a new match type :failedmatch which can help
distinguish the no-match case from the error?
Mark Davis suggested renaming "error" as "undefined". I disagreed then,
but I think I agree now.
Arnt