On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Tony Finch wrote:
> >This is still an incompatible change, but a smaller one.
> >
> >Views?
>
> I think that's ugly :-)
True, but for upwards compatibility sometimes we sometimes have to put
up with less than perfect beauty.
> I suggest that you make an incompatible change to the API
I really don't want to do that. People have been writing and sharing
local_scan() functions and it would wreck that. The only alternative I'm
maybe prepared to contemplate would be to define a new local_scan_2
function with the new API. But keeping the two interfaces for ever is
also ugly.
> This does imply some build-up of cruft over time, but it's systematic
> cruft rather than ad-hoc cruft.
IMHO cruft is cruft is cruft... :-)
Luckily, as I said in a previous message, I'm not yet convinced the
feature is worth implementing at all. Since posting that message, I've
found the original request. The sender wanted to be able to accept
messages with responses such as
250 Accepted, SA score is 4.0, below threshold or 8.0
or
250 This is confirmed spam, feeding to the bit bucket
Who is going to read that?
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
