using argv[] to carry bulk data is gauche. if mh wants to be hacky it
can do stuff like that. if mh wants to be an example of good engineering
then it has to do something else.
Sigh. If we want mh to be a model of good engineering ... well, there's
a lot of work to do. Like getting rid of the parts where environment
variables are used to pass arguments within the same process :-/ Okay,
that doesn't mean we can't do better.
i'd say that things like rmmproc are fine for singleton messages but
that the caller should never use a longer argv than 10 or 20 elements.
that could mean calling it repeatedly, unless something else (new as of
this thread) like rmmpipe is available, which would take its list of
operands on stdin rather than in argv. folks who want atomicity of rmm
across sequences so that they can put the same timestamp on each message
as they trash it, would have the burden of reworking their scripts to
work as rmmpipe rather than rmmproc.
So for this hypothetical rmmpipe ... should the filename separator be
a newline or a \0?
--Ken
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers