On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 01:17:27PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On 8/16/05, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sure... it hasn't been found. We can play the it "might have" or > > "might not have" game all day long but it won't get us anywhere. > > Today, and yesterday pl/Ruby can be run trust/untrusted, pl/python > > can not. > > > Both of these things could be said about Python when it was > > > about the same age Ruby is now. > > > > But they can't be said about Python now. Again I love Python but I > > can't use it the way I want to in the database. > > > > >>I believe that unless plPython can either be fixed > > > > > > > > > Fixed how ? > > > > Be able to be trusted. > > Really a lot of your points seem either to be appealing to the fad > appeal of Ruby or misinformation about Python. It's silliness.
It's not. In PL/parlance, "trusted" means "prevented from ever opening a filehandle or a socket," and PL/PythonU is called PL/Python*U* (U for *un*trusted) because it cannot be so prevented. If somebody has figured out a way to make a PL/Python (without the U), that's great, but nothing has happened on this front in a couple of years, and Guido said that it was a problem with the language that he wasn't going to fix. > The inclusion of pl/ruby should be considered independently of > pl/python, they are separate matters. Not entirely. There are limited resources available for maintaining PLs. > I promise that the aggregate work required for all coders who know > Python to switch to ruby is far far greater than the work required > to fix the issues with pl/python. :) Are you certain? See above in re: what Guido had to say. Cheers, D -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly