> > But I agree, it would probably be better if FCP would be able to specify > > the type of input expected (boolean, long, string, period, etc). > > In the wiki or in the sources? For the sources a (parsable) header file > containing > all message / field / type decls would put a smile on my face. > I was thinking in FCP (and so in the wiki :) I'm not sure to see what you mean an "parsable" header file (or at least, I'm not sure where you want to put this header in the source ?)
> > Anyway, if it's an user input issue, you can do like I did in Thaw (the > > dev version only atm) or like it's done in FProxy : let the user enters > > whatever [s]he wants, and if the node complains / doesn't accept the > > value, then tell him (atm, in thaw, it doesn't tell him, it just put > > displays again the previous value). > > I don't trust users. You never know what they might be throwing at your > input boxes ;-) > Correct, but I think you can trust the node to reject any invalid inputs :) -- Jerome Flesch -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20080213/29d67531/attachment.pgp>
