Re: [Nmh-workers] rmmproc Not Used for Lots of Messages; refile Copies.

[Ralph Corderoy]

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.