[Top] [All Lists]

Re: comparators and "error"

2006-05-10 07:29:29

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.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>