[Top] [All Lists]

Re: the part argument to "date"

2006-10-06 11:45:48

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Ned Freed wrote:
>> I don't quite like the part argument to "date", since the possible
>> values are listed explicitly.  making each of them a tagged argument is
>> easier to express in the grammar, and it avoids the problem of
>> "${format}" which can fail during run-time.  outline of suggested
>> change:
> The main reason I chose to make this a positional argument is that
> tagged arguments are properly optional and I don't think the type of
> date test should be allowed to be optional.

Tagged arguments != Optional arguments, despite looking the same.  C.f.
section 2.6 of RFC 3028.

> This is quite unlike the sitations with other tagged arguments - they
> have sensible defaults.

It's like the :over/:user arguments to the 'size' test...which are tagged
and not optional.

Forgot about that one. It's one of things I like least in the base sieve
specification, so this strengthens my resolve to keep this as a positional


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