Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > We could certainly investigate this more, but it seems like a more > problematic approach than the one taken here. We could add a "is_valid" > bit to struct remote, but then could some code path modify that struct > after it was validated? Two separate parser parsing the same string to produce (supposedly) equivalent parse results is a bit disturbing, and I am not sure if "is_valid" bit helps that. Adding "user" and "password" members to the struct, and retire the existing "parser" (instead it would just use the pre-parsed components stored in the struct) would. It would be a much more involved change, and it is something more than we would want to do in a regression fix patch. But this series is a new feature development, so...
