Re: Chunked Encoding

() Ian Price () Tue, 08 May 2012 03:27:11 +0100 More importantly, I don't want to add a feature no-one will use, anecdotally, trailers are used rarely if at all, and other languages feel comfortable leaving it out of their standard libraries. Seems a chicken and egg situation; no one

Re: Chunked Encoding

On 6 May 2012 12:52, Ian Price wrote: > Well, what I meant is a port that would be layered over the top of > another. Soft ports or custom binary ports would be used to implement > it. (Is there a reason (effiencywise) to prefer one over the other?) > Intuitively I would think custom binary ports

Re: Chunked Encoding

Thien-Thi Nguyen writes: > () Ian Price > () Sun, 06 May 2012 05:52:00 +0100 > >I think we can leave trailers until I have some actual data on >how much these are actually used in practice, and/or someone >complains about it being missing. WDYT? > > It's not so hard to conform. Tra

Re: Chunked Encoding

Hello guilers, Here is a more complete patch. I've also attached a patch to export declare-opaque-header!, which I've occasionally found to be useful. -- Ian Price "Programming is like pinball. The reward for doing it well is the opportunity to do it again" - from "The Wizardy Compiled" >From

Re: Who moderates the scheme-reports list?

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi Alex, > > My understanding is that these mailing lists require a Google account, > which I’m personally not interested in. > > In the past, I subscribed these lists to Gmane [0], but unfortunately, > that doesn’t allow for posting. > > Wo

Re: Psyntax security hole prevents secure sandboxing in Guile

Noah Lavine writes: >> Can you think of anything else that would need to be fixed, besides this >> problem with forgeable syntax-objects? > > It depends how much of a sandbox you're thinking of, but I'd like to > make sure that the untrusted code didn't go into an infinite loop, > which means eit

Re: Psyntax security hole prevents secure sandboxing in Guile

> Can you think of anything else that would need to be fixed, besides this > problem with forgeable syntax-objects? It depends how much of a sandbox you're thinking of, but I'd like to make sure that the untrusted code didn't go into an infinite loop, which means either putting it in a separate pr

Re: Psyntax security hole prevents secure sandboxing in Guile

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Mark H Weaver skribis: > >> Every once in a while someone asks about secure sandboxing with Guile, >> and generally the response is that it should be fairly easy, by creating >> a module with carefully selected bindings, but there's nothing ready >> "out of

Re: Who moderates the scheme-reports list?

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > My understanding is that these mailing lists require a Google account, > which I’m personally not interested in. No, scheme-reports is a mailman list, and you can subscribe to it the same way you'd subscribe to any GNU mailing list: http://lists.scheme-r

Re: Functional record "setters", a different approach

Hi Mark! Mark H Weaver skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> I’ll let you see whether/how you can borrow from this in your code, if >> that’s fine with you. > > Okay, will do. Any progress on this? ;-) I’m happy to help with updating the docs, for instance, if you want. Thank

Re: Psyntax security hole prevents secure sandboxing in Guile

Hi Mark! Mark H Weaver skribis: > Every once in a while someone asks about secure sandboxing with Guile, > and generally the response is that it should be fairly easy, by creating > a module with carefully selected bindings, but there's nothing ready > "out of the box". > > I just realized that

Re: Who moderates the scheme-reports list?

Hi Alex, My understanding is that these mailing lists require a Google account, which I’m personally not interested in. In the past, I subscribed these lists to Gmane [0], but unfortunately, that doesn’t allow for posting. Would it be possible to allow for non-subscriber posts? Thanks, Ludo’.

Re: our benchmark-suite

Hi Neil! Neil Jerram skribis: > Still, I wanted to do something new, so I've added further graphs > showing just the last 50 measurements for each benchmark (whereas the > existing graphs showed all measurements since my data collection > began). The generation of those is still running at the

Re: [PATCH] Turn on more documentation

Hi! Noah Lavine skribis: > Hello, > >> The problem is that the auto-generated “Standard Library” section looks >> very poor in comparison to the rest of the manual.  So we should really >> try hard to write good doc by hands for these, and come up with a handy >> structure (instead of one node p

Re: [PATCH] Turn on more documentation

Hello, > The problem is that the auto-generated “Standard Library” section looks > very poor in comparison to the rest of the manual.  So we should really > try hard to write good doc by hands for these, and come up with a handy > structure (instead of one node per module, all under “Standard > Li

Re: Psyntax security hole prevents secure sandboxing in Guile

That is an interesting problem. It would be nice to have sandboxing. I'm writing to point out that there has been an attempt to make "out-of-the-box" sandboxing work. The modules (ice-9 safe) and (ice-9 safe-r5rs) should be sandboxed environments, I think. (I encountered them while looking for und