[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#30190: 27.0.50; term run in line mode shows user passwords
From: |
Tino Calancha |
Subject: |
bug#30190: 27.0.50; term run in line mode shows user passwords |
Date: |
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 08:28:20 +0900 (JST) |
User-agent: |
Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) |
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018, Stefan Monnier wrote:
More specifically, shouldn't `read-passwd` do that for us (hence if it
doesn't yet, then the right patch is to add this let-binding to
`read-passwd`)?
I don't think so. `read-passwd' uses ?. as default. The docstring suggest
us to let-bind `read-hide-char' in case we wish another char.
But why does term-mode want to use a different char?
What's so different about term-mode?
Of course, nothing. I imagine it's for historical reasons; probably
someone introduced ?* at some point in term.el and nobody cared about it.
Alternatively we could use ?. always as default, and change
`term-send-invisble'.
I don't understand what change to term-send-invisble you're thinking of.
I mean not passing non-nil 2nd argument here:
(when (not (stringp str))
(setq str (term-read-noecho "Non-echoed text: " t)))
;; Above code is from `term-send-invisible'.
Personaly, I prefer ?* because my vision is quite poor and ?. looks too
small :-|
But your vision is not poor only in term-mode, right?
So, what you're really saying here is that you'd like to change
read-passwd to use ?* instead of ?., isn't it? If so, I have nothing
against it, but it's a separate concern from that of bug#30190 and it
should apply to all uses of read-passwd.
Let's be realistic, these kind of changes usually are not welcome. Not a
problem though. It's very minor issue and many people would love ?.
Since you look interested I tell a bit more; while I am introducing a
hidden text (usually a password), I count the number
of ?. to see if matches the length of the password. This is a fast mental
check, don't bother to select the minibuffer contents and check its size.
I find easier to count ?* than ?.
But more than this personal issue from a handicapped person (visually), I
care more about the lack of consistency, as you do: yeah, we should
present uniformly the same char for any command hiding its input.
How to achieve that? I am sure Eli find the proper way.
- bug#30190: 27.0.50; term run in line mode shows user passwords, Noam Postavsky, 2018/07/18
- bug#30190: 27.0.50; term run in line mode shows user passwords, Tino Calancha, 2018/07/18
- bug#30190: 27.0.50; term run in line mode shows user passwords, Stefan Monnier, 2018/07/18
- bug#30190: 27.0.50; term run in line mode shows user passwords, Tino Calancha, 2018/07/18
- bug#30190: 27.0.50; term run in line mode shows user passwords, Stefan Monnier, 2018/07/18
- bug#30190: 27.0.50; term run in line mode shows user passwords,
Tino Calancha <=
- bug#30190: 27.0.50; term run in line mode shows user passwords, Stefan Monnier, 2018/07/18
- bug#30190: 27.0.50; term run in line mode shows user passwords, Noam Postavsky, 2018/07/18
- bug#30190: 27.0.50; term run in line mode shows user passwords, Stefan Monnier, 2018/07/19
- bug#30190: 27.0.50; term run in line mode shows user passwords, Tino Calancha, 2018/07/20
bug#30190: 27.0.50; term run in line mode shows user passwords, Noam Postavsky, 2018/07/18
bug#30190: 27.0.50; term run in line mode shows user passwords, Stefan Monnier, 2018/07/23