sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: Jon Svendsen <jon-sven AT frisurf.no>
- To: Nathan Doss <ndoss AT mtlaurel.org>
- Cc: Peter Schneider-Kamp <peter AT schneider-kamp.de>, sm-sorcery <sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file()
- Date: 02 Sep 2002 04:55:55 +0200
On Mon, 2002-09-02 at 00:54, Nathan Doss wrote:
> > I have attached another patch for edit_file() with a bit
> > more intelligence.
> I've applied it to the cvs version of sorcery (See bug #778
> in bugzilla).
I completely fail to see why we need to do this at all. The entire known
universe relies on $EDITOR to work if it is set. It is a standardized
variable with a well-defined meaning. If someone out there is doing
export EDITOR=/sbin/reboot, that is really their own bloody problem.
Do we really want to require people to hack sorcery to allow them to use
an editor that's not on our "blessed"-list? I think that sucks. And i
REALLY don't want to spend the rest of sorcery's life reading bug
reports about how "sorcery refuses to use <insert obscure editor here>"
Additionaly, if we're going to be taking into account every little way
in which a user might possibly have been inclined to mess up his box, it
will literally take over our code.
As far as I know, there's never been a single problem reported with
doing ${EDITOR:-nano} $1. If it wasn't broken, why are we fixing it,
and more importantly; why are we bloating a single line of code up to
20? To avoid excessive bloat, one must at some point draw the line. If
stuff like this keeps getting added, we'll reach a point where the code
that actually _does_ something will drown in the noise.
Fault tolerance is nice, but all things come with a cost. In this case
that cost is that this code is going to piss off everyone using an
editor we haven't approved of. I also think that this would happen A LOT
more often than the cases where it would expose an actual problem.
Jon
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file(),
Nathan Doss, 09/01/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file(), Jon Svendsen, 09/01/2002
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file(),
Nathan Doss, 09/02/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file(), Ryan Abrams, 09/02/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file(),
Robin Cook, 09/02/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file(), Eric Sandall, 09/02/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file(), Harley J Pig, 09/10/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file(), Nathan Doss, 09/02/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.