David Roundy wrote:
apfelmus wrote:
David Roundy wrote:
porrifolius wrote:
(7) ideally required permissions would appear (and accumulate) in
type signatures via inference so application code knows which are
required and type checker can reject static/dynamic role constraint
violations
In
David Roundy wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
porrifolius wrote:
(7) ideally required permissions would appear (and accumulate) in
type signatures via inference so application code knows which are
required and type checker can reject static/dynamic role constraint
violations
If you mean what I
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:31:16PM +0200, apfelmus wrote:
David Roundy wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
porrifolius wrote:
(7) ideally required permissions would appear (and accumulate) in
type signatures via inference so application code knows which are
required and type checker can reject
Is this type-level design flexible enough for future requirement changes?
The best answer to Why is this door locked? may not be You don't have
permission to open it, but rather What door?.
Suppose a client comes along later with a requirement that the
permissions themselves are secret (e.g.
