Shantonu Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Okay, I've changed it to nmh_getpass(). The only drawback of not calling it
> >getpass() is that in the future people may accidentally use plain getpass()
> >instead of nmh_getpass() and unless they're on an OS where getpass() fails
> >to prompt, they won't know that they shouldn't have done that.
>
> Where else would they use a password function (in nmh?). inc and
> msgchk for POP mail will use getpass as defined here.
Yes, it's likely it won't be used elsewhere, but I still think it's worth
having that section in README.developers.
> >I've added a "nmh-local functions to use in preference to OS versions"
> >section to README.developers documenting this -- anyone know of any other
> >functions in this boat besides [nmh_]getpass()?
>
> ruserpass(), which is unreliably detected and possibly implemented. I
> think the TODO mentions some other functions, like snprintf, which aren't
> implemented yet, but it makes sense to have that section in the README.dev
> as a placeholder.
Yeah, if we _ever_ use the system functions, as we do with snprint(), they
shouldn't go in that section.
But if we sometimes use the vendor ruserpass(), then our nmh_getpass() won't
get called -- we need to always use our ruserpass() or else rename
nmh_getpass() back to getpass() (assuming vendor ruserpass() functions
always call getpass()).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Harkless | To prevent SPAM contamination, please
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | do not post this private email address
SpeedGate Communications, Inc. | to the USENET or WWW. Thank you.
