Re: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-sieve-convert-03.txt

Stephan Bosch wrote:

> Op 20-9-2011 0:53, Barry Leiba schreef:
>
>> 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?
>
> I'd like the test to have the action side-effect.  That is indeed also 
> what I understood from your initial query. I agree that first testing 
> and then performing the action is much of a hassle, both for the 
> implementer of the Sieve interpreter and the Sieve script author.
>
> >From what I see in RFC5228 section 14 and in the old RFC3028, tests 
> having side-effects were originally forbidden explicitly, but are 
> allowed now as per RFC5228. I guess there is a reason for this. 
> However, to my knowledge, this is the first time this line is truly 
> crossed, so I understand Alexey's reservations. Anyway, I do think the 
> advantages outweigh the concerns in this case.

Ok. I suppose I can live with this.


_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve