On 26/08/2024 19:11, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024, 12:02 PM Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com>
wrote:
I recognize that "limiting the allowed expression structures
arbitrarily is way harder than it sounds" is a valid argument as
well. At the same time, John C has offered some valid examples of
cases where it would open up additional footguns, and we want to
minimize those in general. Those shouldn't be ignored, either.
This seems like a valid and balanced position from Larry.
IF it's possible to accomplish, I think it's better to identify the
"leaving this open will create WTF situations" than to prematurely
lock _everything_ down up front.
There's been a few good lists about the cool things this could enable,
demonstrating the value; maybe now we should focus on the "we
absolutely shouldn't enable" pieces to allow for broader consensus.
I like this approach. I'm still not sure I'd want to pursue adding
exclusions, but if we can identify something that's obviously bad and/or
dangerous then we can consider that short list for exclusion. That is
much more compelling than starting out by banning everything and
arbitrarily whitelisting those things someone personally has a use for.
Cheers,
Bilge
