Sorry for the empty reply first: getting used to a new BlackBerry.
This creates a new time of Sieve action, a "testable action".
s/time/type
Doh! Thanks.
I though we were talking about a test which doesn't perform any conversion. I
am
uneasy about tests with side effects (modulo setting match variables).
I *think* everyone else who replied understood what I was suggesting, but maybe
not. Others can comment, and I hope they will.
I personally prefer the simplicity of doing the action and test together. That
said, I'm happy to specify that the test not take the action, if that's the WG
consensus.
I see a problem with that approach: the test can determine whether the
conversion is supported without performing it. But it can't determine whether
it will succeed until it performs it. If the input is corrupted or
mislabelled, how do we have a condition on that? Would it always have to make
the script fail with a runtime error?
So I'm looking for others to weigh in. Do you prefer the action to be taken
along with the test? Or do you prefer having to repeat the text, once for the
test and again to do the action?
Barry
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve