Home page logo

nmap-dev logo Nmap Development mailing list archives

Re: [RFC] Username/Password NSE library
From: "Patrick Donnelly" <batrick.donnelly () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:40:10 -0600

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Kris Katterjohn <katterjohn () gmail com> wrote:
Hash: SHA1

Patrick Donnelly wrote:
I just want to repeat what I said in reply to Thomas:

The performance difference between the two is almost negligible and
certainly will not impact anything. It has become more of an aesthetic
difference. If you have good reasons for not using the generic for
loop then by all means please don't :)

I was confused because you made a lot of changes, one of which had the "main
advantage" of a negligible performance difference :)

I do agree that the for loop method looks a bit cleaner, but that interface is
only good if it's used in that loop (and I don't think every script will).

As long as it's mentioned in the documentation to be used in that way
I think it would be ok.

I was also thrown off by the error() in your patch that didn't seem to do
anything (was that for some other use case?)

I didn't want io.lines to error because it received nil. Instead I
added the call to error (which is made if there is nothing in
nmap.registry.args.blah or if fetchfile returned nil) which would say
what we want, such as "no password database found". Passing nil to
io.lines results in the error:
return io.lines(nil)
stdin:1: bad argument #1 to 'lines' (FILE* expected, got nil)


-Patrick Donnelly

"One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing
to do and always a clever thing to say."

-Will Durant

Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
Archived at http://SecLists.Org

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]