On 1/12/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Guido] > > > I don't understand what you mean by #3 and #4; change *which* length? > > > The phrasing of #3 using "hopefully-big-enough" and "odds" immediately > > > makes me think "buffer overflow attack" which is a non-starter.
I think 3 and 4 are just different ways of salvaging even buggy code. If you're ready to change the name and insist that they check before compiling, then those options aren't needed. > On 1/12/07, Larry Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Change the length of the string. > But IIUC the string may already have been seen by other code, right? > This violates immutability, and that's not acceptable. No. IIRC, the string was rendered as soon as any code viewed it. Since it isn't rendered yet, nothing has viewed it previously. > That's not the right attitude towards memory exceptions. You're > supposed to be able to clean up in finally clauses and __del__ > methods, and all that still requires that existing objects remain > intact. But it is true that this may prevent rendering an object that something *thought* was already created, unless Larry probes deeper into the twisty passages of fallbacks. -jJ _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
