Re: reserved requests, cord message names

[Erik Ostrom <eostrom@research.att.com>]

> 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.

Me either, but...

> the message should either be a special format (like #$#*) or be in the
> mcp- namespace, obviously.

Why?

> #$#> 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.

On the other hand, if you're using a special format instead of a message, then 
it seems to me you've eliminated the point of creating a message equivalent to 
unmarked text.  Unless, in fact, you have the unmarked text, AND the message 
equivalent, AND the special format.

I think if you're concerned about quoting issues, you can just send it 
unquoted--like, REALLY unquoted, like, no #$#anything.  The idea of the 
#$#text-line (or whatever) message, as I see it, is primarily for the sake of 
client internals.

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

Why?  It's just another protocol, isn't it?