And I did not mean this to be a language feature. Just a tool - or part of
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:36:36 PM UTC+3:30, dc0d wrote:
> Going for total immutability is not a best fit for Go. I was thinking like
> excluding packages like unsafe, reflect, executing external programs and
> the like.
> Capabilities seems unnecessarily complicated - getting used to them is not
> easy, like in Pony/ponylang.
> Thanks for the link,
> On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:23:42 PM UTC+3:30, matthe...@gmail.com
>> We’ve been discussing stateless packages here:
>> On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 1:43:05 PM UTC-6, dc0d wrote:
>>> Is there a way to identify a package as safe?
>>> Let's restrict the imported packages to built-in ones. Now assuming a
>>> package only imports "strings" and "net/url" can it considered as safe?
>>> Since it does not (can not) modify the environment (most notably executing
>>> Of course the package still can behave in a malicious manner by (for
>>> example) creating too many goroutines.
>>> This came to mind when I was reading about package managers and learnt
>>> some problems that they have.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.