Jürgen, I will put a check for )MORE availability in the end_input function and display a notification in Emacs when it contains something. Would this be the right approach?
Regards, Elias On 20 February 2014 23:44, Juergen Sauermann <juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de>wrote: > Hi, > > the normal 3-line error printout is documented by IBM and shall remain as > is for compatibility. > > I will, however, put more information about errors in )MORE such as file > names, strerror() stings and the like. > > Pleas feel free to indicate where the information related to errors is not > sufficient. > > /// Jürgen > > > > > On 02/20/2014 12:16 PM, Elias Mårtenson wrote: > > On 20 Feb 2014 18:57, "Kacper Gutowski" <mwgam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 2014-02-16 18:09:06, Juergen Sauermann wrote: > > > Ad 1) I changed the assertions Symbol.cc to short warnings visible in > )MORE. > > > > I wouldn't guess to check )MORE upon getting VALUE ERROR on shared > > variable, but I guess it's better than failed assertion. > > Hmm, this makes me think about a new feature for the Emacs mode: some kind > of warning in the modeline when there is an unread )MORE message. > > Would this be useful? Do you get these kinds of messages often? I rarely > look for it. > > > It appears to work correctly for cooperating users now. Malicious user, > > however, can still easily destroy other users' coupling of shared > variables. > > I'm not going to push for changing it right now because I don't see any > way > > to exploit it beyond denial of service and I'm not using shared variables > > for anything serious, but I think that it should be done eventually. > > I suppose some proper authentication and authorisation mechanism is needed > too. Then comes the question of encryption. Things like Kerberos is easy to > add and is powerful. However, it does require infrastructure a lot of > people don't have. > > Regards, > Elias > > >
