On Sun, 09 Jan 2005, 13:31 GMT+01 Dallman Ross wrote:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 10:56:40AM +0100, Robert Allerstorfer wrote:
I always liked to conditionally include a sub routine. Until now, it
seems you did not like this technique.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't object to subroutines.
I do like to keep things simple or not complicate them unnecessarily.
"Keep things simple." Yes, this is known to me ;-)
In your anti-virus recipe, you are loading the entire procmail code
into memory, even if parts of them will never be used. This is a
"simple" solution, of course, but, IMO, not a "smart" one. This
practise also prevents you to be able re-using parts of your code
(which I call "sub routines").
I remember you told me somethig like it is your goal to have a
one-file-for-all solution when I asked you why you don't split your
code, some times back. As you can see now, outsourcing some code into
separate include files is not only a matter of taste, but essentially
for some advanced operations.
rob.
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail