Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

[Dan Sugalski]

At 07:53 PM 9/27/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > >It might be nice if the result of a calculation was never tainted when the
> > >calculation was in a 'no taint' block.
> >
> > Yerk. No, that's bad. The data is still tainted--the fact that it flowed
> > through a "no taint" block doesn't make it any more trustworthy. Tainting
> > really can't be dealt with like that.
>
>Phew! I was hoping you'd say that, Dan! ;-)
>
>If we're just turning on and off taint *checking*, it might be worth
>noting that in whatever pragma name we choose:
>
>    #!perl -T
>    {
>        no taintchecks;
>    }
>
>Just want to plant the seed early.

This is a good idea. It's sufficiently important a distinction that the 
longer pragma name's worth it--the fact that someone needs to type the 
whole thing out to turn it off would make people less likely to do so...


                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk