Ned Freed wrote:
In the long run, should "ihave" replace "requires" since it subsumes
that functionality?
Well, it can't replace it completely since you have to require ihave...
I don't really know what the end game will be here. My plan is to move
forward
with this as an experimental specification, not standards track.
I tend to agree. Even though I like "ihave" I will have hard time
implementing it due to how lex/yacc is being used by Sieve parser.
Skipping unrecognized actions/tests would be tricky.
I would also like the environment extension to be published on Standard
Track, which suggests splitting up the document.
I'm reluctant
to push for standards-track status because past experience with
mechanisms like
this has not been great - too many devils in the details.