On 10/11/2012 02:47, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 05:46:05PM -0800, David Terei wrote:
On 9 November 2012 17:36, Ian Lynagh <i...@well-typed.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 04:34:20PM -0800, David Terei wrote:
+ Safe Haskell, however, <emphasis>does not offer</emphasis> compilation
+ safety.
Is this a bug? A few lines lower down the docs say that "Compiling and
executing untrusted code" is one of the two use cases for Safe Haskell.
What matters is, does this problem make Safe Haskell unusable. I'd
argue no,
FWIW, I'd say yes, as it doesn't allow the use cases I can think of (OK,
it does work for lambdabot/tryhaskell, but only because they only allow
toy expressions to be evaluated).
What's wrong with using a sandbox? Note that even if we tackled the
problem of safe compilation in GHC, that still doesn't help if you're
using Cabal, which would also need some explicit support for safe
compilation (e.g. to disable the use of Setup.hs, hsc2hs, and who knows
what else). However, using a sandbox addresses both cases, without any
changes in GHC.
Of course we should fix this in GHC in due course, but I'm just pointing
out that a sandbox will probably be necessary, and you can use one right
now to get compilation safety.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
Cvs-ghc@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
