reserved requests, cord message names

[Dave Kormann <davek@research.att.com>]

Erik Ostrom writes:
 > FWIW, I sort of like John's idea of a reserved request name that
 > stands for "not an MCP message".  My only qualm is that the MOO
 > implementation is a little bit tricky.  Assuming somebody actually
 > USES the #$#text-line message, the MCP dispatcher has to use
 > force_input() to get the regular server parser to deal with the line.
 > I guess that's not so bad, it just feels vaguely like voodoo.
 > 

ok; there seems to be some agreement this is a good idea.  if so, i'm
willing to put it in... i'm not comfortable with the name, however.
the message should either be a special format (like #$#*) or be in the
mcp- namespace, obviously.  my vote is for something like either

#$#mcp-inband 21409321 msg: ...

or

#$#> 3210953 msg: ...

the reason for the latter is mostly 'cause it seems like for something
like this you want behavior similar to the behavior on multiline value
lines; that is, i think you want the bulk of the message to be opaque
to the parser to avoid having to worry about silly quoting issues just
to get a line of text across.

as for parser voodoo, hrm.  i don't have a good answer for this.  yep,
i think this'll be a pain to deal with in certain cases, but i can see
where it'd be a good thing.

another, smaller issue: it's been a while; does anyone seriously
object to my prefixing the #$#cord* messages with mcp- ?

another one, that i never properly responded to: there were complaints
a while back that the null message (without a dash, like '#$#cord')
should go away.  i really like these messages, but i'm willing to get
rid of them; they DO make parsers somewhat trickier.  votes?
				dk