Re: bug#29108: 25.3; ERC SASL support

Hey!

J.P. writes:

[...]
>
> Thanks for bailing me out. (This was fast becoming the "Swingers
> answering machine" of bug threads.)

Ahaha no problem ;-)

>> All but one of them were committed without any additional changes; and
>> that one was 0006-Add-non-IRCv3-SASL-module-to-ERC.patch, where I just
>> added the missing entries for doc/misc/erc.texi and etc/ERC-NEWS to
>> the commit message.
>
> Oof. Thanks. I also forgot the bug number on
>
>   0007-Accept-functions-in-place-of-passwords-in-ERC.patch
>
> despite being kindly warned of that eventuality.

Ah, no worries; I missed that as well.

[...]
>
> Right. Too cryptic. I've adjusted things in the second patch but am
> happy to redo/revise, as always. (The first patch contains a bug fix.)
>
[...]
>
> Good call. I've attempted something like that in a separate "examples"
> section (2nd patch). I'm hesitant about the last, "multi-network"
> example, though. It sort of implies we're committing to supporting
> let-binding as a means of specifying per-network local-module options,
> going forward, which maybe also puts us on the hook for (eventually)
> providing a mechanism to make options bookkeeping easier for would-be
> local-module authors. OTOH, neither of those is as yet a realistic
> problem.
>
> Speaking of maintenance burdens, I think `erc-sasl-password' is too
> overloaded and unwieldy, particularly WRT the "non-nil symbol" form. And
> falling back on `:id' is redundant because `erc-auth-source-search'
> already does that. So, as penance for my ugly API design, I've attached
> a (third) patch that tries to corral some of the crazy by adding an
> optional auth-source query function to house the more nuanced
> functionality (for those actually wanting it) while sparing everyone
> else the needless complexity. (That's the idea, anyway.)

Thanks!  Yeah, I don't really see supporting let-binds as too big of a
potential future burden.  Worst case scenario, if/when local modules
are fully implemented and we and/or module authors find supporting
let-binding impractical, or there are clear advantages in not having
them, we could drop them in a major version bump (ERC 6.0 anyone?)
along with any other potential breaking change we might want to make.

Also your simplification sounds good.  I pushed the v2 of all three
patches from your other reply to emacs-29.  Thanks again!

>> Many thanks for all of your work on implementing and landing SASL
>> support for ERC, a feature that many ERC users (myself included)
>> have wished for and looked forward to seeing in ERC for years!
>>
>> -amin
>
> My pleasure! (Although I should've been quicker to admit that my older
> POC efforts weren't suitable for prime time without serious reworking.)
>

Cheers!

-a