That sounds quite logical now you say it. So from a 'security' point of view that's closed neatly.
The developer (that includes scripts) will have to look into 'all' (not as if most userscripts don't stand separately) included scripts to see what those scripts use. One could just combine the @grant lines from the included scripts I guess. That's then not too bad. I am a bit in a pickle with my update script. Since I cannot notify other developers about changing their @grant lines. Maybe I should just discontinue it and use GreaseMonkey's updater myself. Thank you for your answer! On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Anthony Lieuallen <[email protected]>wrote: > The files that are included with @require are just snippets of javascript, > not full user scripts. Their metadata (if any) is not parsed and not > used. The way the current no grant line sniffer code is written does > consider the requires when choosing which to guess. > > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 8:13 AM, ArmEagle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Suppose script A: >> @require B >> @grant none >> >> And script B: >> no @grant line (yet), but using GM_ methods. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "greasemonkey-users" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-users?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "greasemonkey-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-users?hl=en.
