Re: I-D ACTION:draft-daboo-sieve-include-03.txt (fwd)

["Nigel Swinson" <[e-mail]>]

> the consequence of this is that global variables are only visible in
> included scripts if they require the "include" extension themselves.  I
> don't think this natural behaviour, and why I have advocated making
> variables global by default.
> 
> there is an alternative which may be easier to get consensus for:  the
> change of text above, and an extra extension, call it "globals".
> "globals" adds the :global modifier for "set" _and_ makes already
> declared globals available to the current script.

... where a global variable is available both to the current script, to all scripts it includes, and all scripts that include it.

Either of the above would be fine by me, and I agree the latter would be preferable :o)

I consider the contents of a .siv file to be a script.  And that you can build larger scripts by using the include extension.  To declare that "there is only one script" seems quite confusing to me, as what then do you call a .siv file that is included by the parent siv file?  Is it not a script too?  Conveniently, the abstract of the include spec already seems to already fit with my definition of a script.

> this means that a script will only be able to use the variables it has
> set itself unless it explicitly asks to import the globals.

.. and it uses the :global modifier when it uses the set action.
 
> "globals" can be put in the "include"-document, or in a separate
> document.  I favour the former as I think there is a natural connection.
> (it could also be in "variables", but that would delay the document
> needlessly.)

I agree, and again I think it preferable to change the word "global" to "file" in the variables draft in order to avoid confusion generated when reading include+variables.  I would settle for what Aaron just suggested, but it still means we end up with two meanings for the word "global".

Nigel