Richard Coleman <coleman(_at_)math(_dot_)gatech(_dot_)edu> writes:
In nmh, I have changed this (undocumented) feature into the
documented option "-[no]bitstuffing". I have added it to `forw' as
While I understand the need to improve things, and I'm usually not too
concerned with compatibility, I must say that I don't understand the name
change. "bitstuffing" doesn't seem like the right name either: it doesn't do
any "bit" operation as far as I can see. "nodashmunging" sounds a lot more
intuitive to me.
Is there some deep reason behing this change, apart from personal preference
I had always heard it called "bitstuffing". The MH source code also
used that term somewhere. But I just looked in RFC934, and couldn't
find the term.
But I just changed it to "dashstuffing", which is close to the wording
in RFC934. I like that better than "dashmunging".
Just a personal preference.
rc