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