I agree with Richard here.. it's nice to be able to isolate branch changes to not infect other branches. :)<br><br>As for the contact header example given above.. I also agree with Richard that the function should be made to perhaps be a little more intuitive.<br>
<br>Overall, like I said before, I think a lot of these issues can be resolved with smart scriptwriting. This is a bit OT, but one thing I think that would help [people like me] out a lot is if the functions themselves would be smart enough to alert the scriptwriter of doing stupid things.. For example, there have been a number of posts to the mailing list regarding double updating headers and getting "weird" results. instead of producing weird results, I'd think that it'd do something like, only apply the last one (which I can understand the complexity of saving the original msg along with all requested changes..), or rejecting any duplicate efforts to change.. Either way, there should be a generated WARNING message to indicate that you probably didn't want to do that and that it's a scripting error. <br>
<br>That's my $0.02. :)<br>-Brett<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Richard Revels <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rrevels@bandwidth.com">rrevels@bandwidth.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Being able to make changes on a branch and have those changes disappear when the branch does is very handy.<br>
<br>
So far, the issue of not being able to change a header in script because it had already been changed in a function call hasn't been a major issue for me either. I wonder if the example given in another email of needing to add a tag after calling fix_natted_contact couldn't be resolved by changing the fix_natted_contact function to accept a tag parameter.<br>
<br></blockquote></div>