Re: [Extra] Comments on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-03

[Stephan Bosch <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ned,

BTW, can you review the IMAP examples in this specification?

Regards,


Stephan.


Op 31/10/2018 om 00:11 schreef Ned Freed:
>> Hi Stephan,
>> On 29/10/2018 12:06, Stephan Bosch wrote:
>>> Hi Alexey,
>>>
>>>
>>> Op 28-10-2018 om 16:07 schreef Alexey Melnikov:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I've just tried to implement this Sieve extension and I have a couple of
>>>> comments:
>>>>
>>>> 3.  Test "specialuse_exists"
>>>>
>>>>      Usage:  specialuse_exists [<mailbox: string>]
>>>>                                <special-use-flags: string-list>
>>>>
>>>> This defines an optional argument. According to the base Sieve RFC 5228,
>>>> optional arguments must be tagged:
>>>>
>>>>     2.6.1.  Positional Arguments
>>>>
>>>>      Positional arguments are given to a command that discerns their
>>>>      meaning based on their order.  When a command takes positional
>>>>      arguments, all positional arguments must be supplied and must be in
>>>>      the order prescribed.
>>>>
>>>>    and
>>>>
>>>>     2.6.3.  Optional Arguments
>>>>
>>>>      Optional arguments are exactly like tagged arguments except that they
>>>>      may be left out, in which case a default value is implied.  Because
>>>>      optional arguments tend to result in shorter scripts, they have been
>>>>      used far more than tagged arguments.
>>>>
>>>> So I don't think you can have "mailbox" being positional without a tag!
>>> Then what about the entirety of the "imap4flags" extension?
>> Guilty as charged :-). I entirely forgot about that and the reason why I
>> haven't noticed is because my implementation doesn't support "variables"
>> extension, so variable name parameter to addflag/removeflag/setflag is
>> never allowed.
>> Any other opinions (Ned?). I just want to make sure that if we violating
>> some kind of architectural principle specified in the base Sieve script,
>> than we decide to do this deliberately. (Or maybe we just agree that
>> there is no architectural principle to begin with.)
> There was some principle in play, I think - Sieve copies this aspect from
> Common LISP, and if memory serves, &optional in Common LISP makes all
> subsequent parameter optional, so you can do something like:
>
>      (defun fu (a b &optional c d) ...
>
> but there is nothing like:
>
>      (defun bar (a (&optional b) c) ...
>
> But it looks like we've already crossed this bridge with imap4flags, and
> nobody has complained. So let's note it and move on.
>
>>> Lots of
>>> tag-less optional arguments can be found there. I am not against having
>>> some ":mailbox" tag here, but the current syntax does make things more
>>> concise.
>>>
>>>> 4.  ":specialuse" Argument to "fileinto" Command
>>>>
>>>>      Usage:  fileinto [:specialuse <special-use-flag: string>]
>>>>                       <mailbox: string>
>>>>
>>>> Can I suggest that all special-use-flag strings should not include the
>>>> leading "\" character? It requires escaping in Sieve, so people might
>>>> make mistakes when writing scripts.
>>> I have no strong opinion about that. Disadvantage of doing that is that
>>> it can be confusing for people with IMAP experience and it becomes
>>> inconsistent with imap4flags.
>> Yes, that is true. At the same time in JMAP we can do remove leading "\"
>> character from flag names as well.
>> So yes, I am not fully decided on this issue. Anybody else wants to comment?
> I'm not fond of having multiple forms for things, so I'd prefer to keep
> the "\". It's not a strong preference, however.
>
> 				Ned
>
> _______________________________________________
> Extra mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra