From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Moving files from lisp/gnus/ to lisp/net/? Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:55:39 -0500 Message-ID: References: <2366.81.51.30.174.1098020712.squirrel@yxa.extundo.com> <87y7dd2e0f.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <54a15d860711060601s2d85f32o5942939270a7e59e@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1194425725 4030 80.91.229.12 (7 Nov 2007 08:55:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:55:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: simon@josefsson.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Daiki Ueno" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 07 09:55:28 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ipgh4-0001KZ-PG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:55:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ipggt-0008HC-Th for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:55:15 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IpgcJ-0005kG-Bz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:50:32 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IpgcF-0005gf-13 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:50:28 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpgcD-0005fk-Vm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:50:26 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IpgcD-0001xf-Id for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:50:25 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IpflD-0004QC-8L; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:55:39 -0500 In-reply-to: <54a15d860711060601s2d85f32o5942939270a7e59e@mail.gmail.com> (ueno@unixuser.org) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:82719 Archived-At: > All else being equal, I'd rather avoid adding another level of function > calling. It increases the total complexity, and I don't see any benefit. > What is the benefit here? Even though read-passwd is not perfectly secure, it is far better than password caching in elisp. If read-passwd does password caching by itself and the docstring says so, thoughtless programmers will tend to use that feature in every case. That will cause spreading insecure code. I do not understand the argument you are making. I was talking about two alternatives for writing the Lisp code: one function and two functions. I don't know how to relate what you said to that choice.