A few minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
> >
> > Also, it's likely that I don't understand, but it sounds to me
> > like it's better to stay out of this thing since otherwise you
> > need to commit to be sandboxed -- and if it's the same as on the
> > ios, then a sandboxed racket is not very useful...
>
> First, this isn't the same as the iOS sandbox, but it would be
> troublesome for Racket. For example, I don't think `require' can
> work.
>
> Second, signing doesn't imply sandboxing, I think. Only in the Mac
> App Store is sandboxing required. I think we will definitely want
> to make Racket a signed app.
Yes to both -- but to clarify, it looks to me that in general the OS X
thing is slowly moving closer to iOS (so I guess that sandboxing will
get closer to it in time), and I'm also guessing that the second level
will slowly move to adopt restrictions from the first one (becoming a
kind of an alternative to distributing your application via the apple
store, but otherwise almost the same).
> Your friendly smug Linux user :),
(+1)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
