Hi,
Paul Vixie wrote:
On 2012-11-27 1:09 AM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
So for this hypothetical rmmpipe ... should the filename separator
be a newline or a \0?
if we want to allow newlines in filenames we'd have to allow -0 (like
xargs does) to change the format. this would be a burden on all
rmmpipe implementations
Since my current rmmproc is basically an `xargs rename' it's little
effort to add -0.
unwarranted in my view since someone crazy enough to put a \n in their
MHPATH deserves all the pain we can lay in store for them.
so, \n.
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
One text item per line is the Unix Way.
I agree it's the Unix Way, however it seems to add little implementation
effort, but then I'm not the implementor :-) , to have the \n or \0
switchable by the writer? Also, instead of a new rmmpipe to partner
rmmproc it could be `rmmprocopt: -p0' where it takes options; `p'
piped, `0' NUL-terminated with the current option-processing code called
into action?
(Aside, David A. Wheeler has a good write-up, _Fixing Unix/Linux/POSIX
Filenames_, of the current mess.
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/fixing-unix-linux-filenames.html
IIRC, Plan 9 banned space for a while, along with the normal NUL and
`/', but then reverted and allowed space again.)
Cheers, Ralph.
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers