15 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Fri, 15 Apr 2011 02:37:19 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > More than a week ago, ry...@racket-lang.org wrote:
> > > a19a034 Ryan Culpepper <ry...@racket-lang.org> 2011-04-04 15:14
> > > :
> > > | added ffi/unsafe/security
> > > :
> > > A collects/ffi/unsafe/security.rkt
> >
> > `ffi/unsafe' should be for things that are not safe, so it looks like
> > this should be elsewhere.
>
> I agree, and `ffi/security' or `ffi/file' seems like the right library
> name.
>
> > (And looking at the functionality, it looks like it's better to
> > get rid of the ffi types which are easily done with
> > `security-guard-check-file', and move it to a different collection
> > -- maybe `racket/path'?)
>
> I don't agree. Calling `security-guard-check-file' shouldn't be
> necessary in code that doesn't use the FFI, because suitable
> security checks should be built into a safe operation.
Right, but we're talking about the `_file*' types, so it's only for
code that uses the ffi, no?
Actually, I think that I misread it -- if you're saying that you don't
agree with moving it out of the ffi collection, then I'm convinced,
> And the `_file/guard', `_file/r', and `_file/rw' derived FFI types
> seem clearly useful.
... and if this is the case then there's no problems keeping these
too.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
