Subject: Re: New Identd
To: Simon Burge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Sean Davis <email@example.com>
Date: 01/30/2004 23:36:46
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 01:56:27PM +1100, Simon Burge wrote:
> Christos Zoulas wrote:
> > Looks nice! A few comments:
> > [ ... ]
> > 6. All functions in there and globals should be static.
> Do we really need to do this? There is only one .c file in this
> program, and it's certainly not common practice elsewhere in our
> source tree for single source file programs.
Not common practice? it took me about one minute to come up with this list
of single source file programs. Sure, they may be less complex than identd,
but identd is not very complex either. I think a single-source-file identd
is fine, and if it gives us functionality our existing identd doesn't have,
what is so wrong with it being one source file? I've wanted the
user-settable reply feature for a while, and have patched it into our
existing identd before. It wasn't a complicated change. While I haven't
examined the submitted identd source, I don't see any reason it should be
scorned simply because it is contained in one source file.
=2E.. shall I go on? ...
/~\ The ASCII
\ / Ribbon Campaign Sean Davis
X Against HTML aka dive
/ \ Email!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----