Subject: Re: Sieve extensions

From: "Stan Bailes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 07:12:27 -0800

Ned Freed <[email-masked]> writes:

>Rob, let me be blunt. I think this is a recipe for disaster. Nothing more
and
>nothing less. This is a showstopper for me and I will not support or
contribute
>to the development of a language with these characteristics. If the group's
>consensus is to pursue this model I am not interested in chairing it or
>participating in it further.

I am not convinced, but in the interest of making progress, and since I now
appear to be the lone dissenter, I'll go along with the proposal to drop
"support".

Though I can see it now:  the first line of every Sieve script will be

    require "support";

;-)

Stan

---

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Jan 1998 11:51:03 -0500

> From: "Stan Bailes" <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 07:12:27 -0800
> 

I oppose require unless it's metainformation for similar reasons to my
opposition to support.  ;-)

(My basic problem is that I never want runtime errors.  A script should be
verified at time of submission, and if it's unusable, it should be
refused, and never run.  Require is taken out of the most recent draft to
stop runtime errors like
	if (...) { require "fubar"; } else { ... }
But if it were metainformation, and so valid for the whole script, I'd be
in favor of it.)

-- 
                                          Tim Showalter [email-masked]