procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: syntax enhancement dreams

1997-08-28 02:20:33
terry jones writes on 27 August 1997 at 22:54:31

"David" == David W Tamkin <dattier(_at_)wwa(_dot_)com> writes:

David> | what i am claiming (and i'll use one of your example responses below
David> | to illustrate this) is that something like this:
David> | 
David> |   if ((A || B) && (C || D)){
David> |     action;
David> |   }
David> | 
David> | is vastly easier for people to look at, vaguely understand, and build
David> | upon than your equivalent:
David> | 
David> |   :0
David> |   * !A
David> |   * !B
David> |   { }
David> |   :0E
David> |   * !C
David> |   * !D
David> |   { }
David> |   :0E
David> |   action

My only argument, and one that I think you have helped me make, is
that the bizarro procmail syntax (especially if extended in some of

Another thing to consider is that procmail was designed to be a very
efficient mail-processing utility.  While to most of us, a few extra
cycles (or even a fork() or two) don't matter much, to someone running
hundreds of SmartList mailing lists on a single machine, or doing
global SPAM filtering large domain every cycle counts.  The extra time
needed to process a more C-like syntax may be miniscule, but for some
situations it could nevertheless be significant.

If you really want to use a C-like syntax, why not write a procmail
pre-processor?

   Dan
------------------- message is author's opinion only ------------------
J. Daniel Smith <DanS(_at_)bristol(_dot_)com>        
http://www.bristol.com/~DanS
Bristol Technology B.V.                   +31 33 450 50 50, ...51 (FAX)
Amersfoort, The Netherlands               {info,jobs}(_at_)bristol(_dot_)com

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