Hi Ned,
NED+mta-filters(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
I actually disagreed with the exclusion of variables from the first argument to
set here. But that's water long since under the bridge.
[...]
Since I disagree with the exclusion of set, I also am opposed to this
expansion. And even if I were to agree to this in principle (which I don't),
I would still object to this change on the grounds that it makes
currently conforming implementation nonconformant for no good reason.
[...]
I understand the logic behind such exclusions. I just don't agree that the
supposed benefits are worth the loss in flexibility.
>
Although I tend to agree with your appreciation for flexibility, I also
value consistency. My implementation does not support constructing
variable names with variable substitutions anywhere, since I assumed all
variable name arguments to have similar requirements as the set
command's variable name argument (e.g. for hasflag). Now I am wondering
whether I should implement support for this anyway. Did you?
I think consensus on issues like these is very important to guarantee
interoperability.
Regards,
Stephan.
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve