Re: mostly open issues

[Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> At 12:20 AM -0800 11/18/98, Ned Freed wrote:

> > I'm sorry, but if short circuit evaluation is useful then it should be a
> > requirement, and if not it should not even be an extension. I don't buy the
> > argument that this is problematic because some languages don't support
> > short-circuit evaluation. Just because you don't have short-circuit in some
> > language doesn't mean that you cannot write a sieve interpreter in that
> > language that does have short circuit characteristics. The two are largely
> > unrelated unless you're using a direct translation approach, in which case
> > other constraints are likely to be a lot more onerous.

> True.  I withdraw my concern regarding mandatory short circuit
> evaluation.  (After reading Ned's message I realized that my own
> implementation would still support short-circuit evaluations even if
> the underlying language didn't.)

> How about something like:

> ANYOF evaluation MUST stop as soon as one element evaluates to TRUE.
> That is, Sieve implementations are REQUIRED to support short-circuit
> evaluations.

> (With the same for ALLOF, except TRUE replaced by FALSE.)

Sounds fine to me.

				Ned