[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Updated Sieve environment draft posted

2008-03-15 15:00:35

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Ned Freed wrote:
>> > First of all, the specification says that any test against an unknown
>> > item must fail unconditionally. This provides a simple way to check and
>> > see if a given item is available:
>> >
>> >   if environment :matches "item" {...}
>> There's a pattern missing there.
> Right, sorry about that.
>> Regardless, the empty substring test is
>> probably more efficient:
>>        if environment :contains "item" "" { ... }
> This almost always works, but not in the case where the environment
> item has the null string as a possible return value.

Ummm, what?  Are you saying that there exists some case where
        if environment :matches "item" "*" { ... }
        if environment :contains "item" "" { ... }

would return different results?

Sorry, my mistake, I was thinking of :is.

If that's not what you meant, then I don't understand what you're saying.

I strongly believe that <<:matches "*">> and <<:contains "">> MUST have
the same result with *any* combination of test and comparator.

Certainly should be true of all tests and any comparator we've defined so far,
not entirely sure it will extend to all future comparators.


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