In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:11:21 -0600, Tony Belding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
>
>> the security issue that really worries me. . . I have to be able to
>> limit what the interpreter can execute. I can't have my users running
>
> That is going to be the killer... Python no-longer ships with a
>"secure sandbox" module, because there were always ways to work around
>it.
.
.
.
Tcl's the one language in this area that has gone the farthest
with its "safe interpreter" <URL: http://wiki.tcl.tk/4204 >,
and Tcl is well-supported under Mac OS.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language Timothy Goddard
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language Stephan Kuhagen
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language Cameron Laird
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language Fred Bayer
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting langua... Laurent Pointal
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting la... Cameron Laird
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scriptin... Laurent Pointal
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scr... Cameron Laird
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language rony
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language i
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language Jeremy C B Nicoll
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language johnzenger
