Date:	Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:48:32 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	RE: Status update (Smalltalk/Python)
In-Reply-To:	<NEBBIOJNGMKPNOBKHCGHAEOACAAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010121144545.16311C-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Tim Van Holder wrote:

> > No, they aren't Posix, and a program which assumes them without testing 
> > is buggy.  But I think we've bumped into this enough times, so please go 
> > ahead and post the patches to add them.
> 
> OK - here goes.

Thanks!

> I wasn't sure if this was worhy of a mention in
> wc204, so I didn't add an entry there.

I think it should be mentioned.  It's a user-level change, isn't it?

> +static char def_passwd[] = "";

I wonder: isn't this dangerous?  Won't we get problems with some 
over-zealous programs that might not like empty passwords?

(Also, a non-empty password might be less dull ;-)

- Raw text -