>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 [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
