Re: Inline methods without mimencode and Perl

[Daniel Pittman]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Kai Gro wrote:
> Daniel Pittman <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> *nod* I would suggest maintaining a list of possible encodings, or
>> rather functions that detect if an encoding works, in preference
>> order.
> 
> This is almost done, except that there is no function to test whether
> an coding works.  Instead, there is a function going through the list
> and testing each coding.

I tried that initially and, in the end, reversed the situation so that I
could have a more functional test for each encoding.

> Maybe a simple approach is to add a preparation function.  That is,
> before testing a coding, Tramp executes the preparation function.
> Maybe the preparation function could be allowed to veto the decision,
> too: if Perl isn't on the remote end, then we don't even need to try
> the Perl-based codings.

*nod*  I found that sending the string 'Hello World' in both directions
through the encoders was a worthwhile test and, overall, not that time
consuming.

That was after checking for prerequisite programs, of course.

> That should be easy enough to do.
> 
> Tramp is getting closer to the Tramp2 approach, I think :-)

I can't say that I am surprised; in the end it's nicer to have it "just
work" for you. I hope that some of the stuff from Tramp2 is actually
useful to you.

       Daniel

-- 
When there is a gap betweem one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as
it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish
squirting out ink.
        -- George Orwell