Re: [Nmh-workers] rmmproc Not Used for Lots of Messages; refile Copies.

[Ken Hornstein]

>using argv[] to carry bulk data is gauche. if mh wants to be hacky it
>can do stuff like that. if mh wants to be an example of good engineering
>then it has to do something else.

Sigh.  If we want mh to be a model of good engineering ... well, there's
a lot of work to do.  Like getting rid of the parts where environment
variables are used to pass arguments within the same process :-/  Okay,
that doesn't mean we can't do better.

>i'd say that things like rmmproc are fine for singleton messages but
>that the caller should never use a longer argv than 10 or 20 elements.
>that could mean calling it repeatedly, unless something else (new as of
>this thread) like rmmpipe is available, which would take its list of
>operands on stdin rather than in argv. folks who want atomicity of rmm
>across sequences so that they can put the same timestamp on each message
>as they trash it, would have the burden of reworking their scripts to
>work as rmmpipe rather than rmmproc.

So for this hypothetical rmmpipe ... should the filename separator be
a newline or a \0?

--Ken