Re: while we're restricting things ..

[Ken Fox <fox@ares.mars.org>]

>i don't like this; i really like that you can have one-message
>protocols consisting only of the protocol name.  a number of things
>make use of this fact, and it seems to be a net win.  otherwise, you
>end up with cruft like
>#$#mcp-edit-edit

What is "a number of things"?  The cord message is the only one I
know about and I already think that should be changed since that is
_not_ a one message protocol.  For the edit protocol, we've already
discussed a more symmetric protocol with at least two messages and
I'd vastly prefer that.  How often does this case come up over the
"multiple messages in a protocol"?

--Ken