On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Jeff Forcier <[email protected]> wrote: > I think having a password-safe version of prompt() (either a separate > command or an argument to prompt() itself) would be a good idea and I > can't think of any obvious reason why it wouldn't work. The internal > password related prompts use getpass (at least, they did when I last > looked) and they work fine.
I agree; I went with "naked" `getpass` and immediately wanted stuff like "re-type" etc. I think it'd be cleaner to have a separate operator for it (`password_prompt` is probably better than `secret_password` unless someone can think of actual usecases for a generic "secret value type"). I do think adding a "password expansion" like "$(passwd:password)" or similar would be motivated by this, although it is an invasive change for the benifit of one sole operator.. And how it should work.. Explicit `del` (as in my example), or perhaps dropping the value once used? I'm not sure.. > I'll star this convo in my GMail and will make sure this gets added to > the TODO list sometime =) I do that too. ;) I really recommend the "superstars" Lab feature for that.. (What to recommend for actually taking time to implement my ideas is another task.. Perhaps Philip J Eby's "Owners' Circle".. ;) ) Best regards, Niklas > -Jeff > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Niklas Lindström <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hm. Of course, I can just *use* getpass here, although I loose some of >> the `prompt` features. Remaining then is whether some secret expansion >> is still desirable (the solution of which may or may not make the >> usecase of `secret_prompt` interesting again).. > _______________________________________________ Fab-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fab-user
