John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> nmh_getpass().
> > >
> > > I think we should change the name. Our function's whole point is to
> > > obviate the need for any system-specific getpass(), so we shouldn't
> > > have to adhere to their prototypes unless we really want to.
> >
> > 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.
>
> You could add a getpass() function that will collide with the system
> definition and, when called, issue an error message and either
> a) Call the real one
> b) Terminate the program.
But then we're back to having to autodetect the proper declaration to get it
to compile. Probably not worth the work for a function which, as has been
pointed out, is likely not get get called elsewhere in the code in the future.
> Compiler messages are unimportant, though an explanatory comment at the
> function to explain why it's there would be a Good Thing.
I disagree. Compiler warnings just pointed out two bugs in the new
getpass() function. It's important to write code that compiles clean with
gcc -Wall if it all possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
