After reading the messages on this thread i'm starting to think
that it would be good to clarify what kinds of threats we are
trying to defend against, and specify what invariants we are
intending to preserve.
For example, here are a few things Brett mentioned:
Right. I am thinking more of an
Frank Wierzbicki wrote:
On 7/5/06, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Frank,
Have you and/or the Jython community made up your mind about this? The
thread seems to have disappeared after you posted (or perhaps it
continued only on jython-dev, which I don't read?).
The thread
Neal Norwitz schrieb:
On 7/4/06, Thomas Heller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to ask about the possibility to add some improvements to ctypes
in Python 2.5, although the feature freeze is now in effect. Hopefully
former
third-party libraries can have the freeze relaxed somewhat;-).
On Jul 5, 2006, at 7:35 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On Jul 4, 2006, at 11:21 PM, Neal Norwitz wrote:
Ronald, Bob,
I know Skip found and fixed his problem, however, is this problem
likely to affect other users? Is there anything we can do to help
alleviate/diagnose this problem?
I'll
Hi Brett,
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 05:01:48PM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
And if Armin and/or Samuele sign off that what we find is most likely (with
most likely equalling 99% chance) all there is, then bonus points and I
will *really* be convinced. =)
I don't think I can sign off that.
Anthony Baxter wrote:
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 22:32, Nick Coghlan wrote:
1. Finishing the __module_name__ workaround to allow relative
imports from the main module when using -m.
I have some nervousness about this. Are there cases in the stdlib
where this is an issue, today? Are there any
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 07:27 PM 7/5/2006 +0200, Guido van Rossum wrote:
However I still don't believe global has the stretchiness in its
meaning that you claim it has. Have you ever heard a Python programmer
talking about closures use the word global variable?
Are there any other native
Hi all,
In reference to:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=1514451group_id=5470atid=105470
I wrote a patch for this bug, but a valid point was raised by Ronald
Oussorren: this borders on being more of a feature than a bug fix,
although - IMHO - this fix improves
I wrote:
I would still rather not spread FUD.
Brett Cannon responds:
I don't consider it FUD. Armin in an email said that he thought it
was a losing battle to try to hide 'file' from an interpreter. That
is what I am worried about, period. Everythign else can be
protected through resource
Ka-Ping Yee writes:
i'm starting to think
that it would be good to clarify what kinds of threats we are
trying to defend against, and specify what invariants we are
intending to preserve.
Yes!
So here are a couple of questions for clarification (some with my
guesses as to their answers):
Michael Chermside [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Phillip Eby writes:
I don't see a problem with requiring '.x' to be used for both
reading and writing of outer-scope names; it just shouldn't be
required for an outer-scope name that you don't rebind in the
current scope.
def
Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On 7/5/06, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using the classic nonsense example:
def counter(num):
def inc():
.num += 1
return .num
return inc
Would this also use ..num
So.. are we only thinking about implementing this outer scope
assignment because
there's lots of talk about it on the list, or are there actually use
cases that
would become clearer if assigning to an outer scope variable was allowed? I
tend to think that almost _any_ piece of code that could be
jan-python So.. are we only thinking about implementing this outer
jan-python scope assignment because there's lots of talk about it on
jan-python the list, ...
:-)
jan-python ... or are there actually use cases that would become
jan-python clearer if assigning to an outer
Armin Rigo writes:
I don't think I can sign off [on hiding the file type]. Really hiding
Python objects is quite hard IMHO.
I agree. But we don't have to give up yet. How about instead of hiding
file, we cripple it. Completely. Modify the file type so that when
executing on a sandboxed
However I still don't believe global has the stretchiness in its
meaning that you claim it has. Have you ever heard a Python programmer
talking about closures use the word global variable?
I guess the term I've heard most often is free variable, but I wouldn't be
surprised if I saw the term
On 7/6/06, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 on nonlocal.I think that the := operator is also in case (b), but as I don't likeit I'm find with not mentioning it. :-)Could someone write a PEP for this? Doesn't have to be very long butI'd like it to summarize the main options proposed and
At 10:05 AM 7/6/2006 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jan-python So.. are we only thinking about implementing this outer
jan-python scope assignment because there's lots of talk about it on
jan-python the list, ...
:-)
jan-python ... or are there actually use cases that would
On 7/5/06, Talin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote: On 7/5/06, Michael Chermside [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you were using capabilities, you would need to ensure that restricted interpreters could only get the file object that they
were given. But then _all_ of these fancy versions of
On 7/6/06, Michael Chermside [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote: I would still rather not spread FUD.Brett Cannon responds: I don't consider it FUD.Armin in an email said that he thought it was a losing battle to try to hide 'file' from an interpreter.That
is what I am worried about,
On 7/5/06, Ka-Ping Yee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Brett Cannon wrote: On 7/4/06, Ka-Ping Yee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In response to Guido's comment about confusing the words trusted and
untrusted, how about empowered and restricted? Maybe.I am really starting to lean towards
On 7/5/06, Greg Ewing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote: Armin in an email said that he thought it was a losing battle to try to hide 'file' from an interpreter.And I would change file() so that it didn't openfiles. Then it would be harmless for code to have
access to the file
[replying to both Ping and Michael in the same email]On 7/6/06, Michael Chermside [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ka-Ping Yee writes: i'm starting to think that it would be good to clarify what kinds of threats we are
trying to defend against, and specify what invariants we are intending to
On Thursday 06 July 2006 13:22, tomer filiba wrote:
my suggestion is simple -- replace this mechanism with a __dir__ -
a special method that returns the list of attributes of the object.
rationale:
* remove deprecated __methods__, etc.
* symmetry -- just like hex() calls __hex__, etc.
On 7/6/06, Michael Chermside [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Armin Rigo writes: I don't think I can sign off [on hiding the file type].Really hiding Python objects is quite hard IMHO.
I agree. But we don't have to give up yet. How about instead of hidingfile, we cripple it. Completely. Modify the file
On 7/6/06, Armin Rigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Brett,On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 05:01:48PM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote: And if Armin and/or Samuele sign off that what we find is most likely (with most likely equalling 99% chance) all there is, then bonus points and I
will *really* be convinced.=)I
I plan to do some subversion administration
tomorrow; in order to be able to roll back changes,
I have to disable write access during these
changes.
The outage shouldn't last longer than one hour;
most likely, it will be much faster.
Regards,
Martin
On 7/6/06, Michael Chermside [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Me: I agree. But we don't have to give up yet. How about instead of hiding file, we cripple it. Completely. Modify the file type so that when executing on a sandboxed interpreter, all of the dangerous methods
and attributes of file throw
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Brett Cannon wrote:
I have been working on a design doc for restricted execution of Python
as part of my dissertation for getting Python into Firefox to replace
JavaScript on the web.
I've been doing a bunch of Firefox extension programming in Javascript
and suddenly a few
Back at the beginning of June, the Python Software Foundation's Infrastructure committee sent out an email requesting people to help us find a replacement tracker for SourceForge (the original announcement can be found at
http://wiki.python.org/moin/CallForTrackers ). We asked that people put
At 05:17 PM 7/6/2006 -0500, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Brett Cannon wrote:
I have been working on a design doc for restricted execution of Python
as part of my dissertation for getting Python into Firefox to replace
JavaScript on the web.
I've been doing a bunch of Firefox
Talin wrote:
I propose to create a new type of scoping rule, which I will call
explicit lexical scoping, that will co-exist with the current
implicit scoping rule that exists in Python today.
I'd like to toss one more variant into the mix. If we really need to
address variables in an
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:28:12 +0200, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Here's the reason I think this keeps coming up, and why Guido's just
use a class argument doesn't really address the actual problem that's
taking place.
I agree this argument is not generally applicable in every
At 01:00 AM 7/7/2006 +0200, Jan Kanis wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:28:12 +0200, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Here's the reason I think this keeps coming up, and why Guido's just
use a class argument doesn't really address the actual problem that's
taking place.
I agree this argument
On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 01:25:19 +0200, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- or so it feels like to the person who's experiencing it.
Have you ever been that person, or come across such a situation?
Many times. The hard thing about trying to provide use cases for this
is that of
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
As much as I'd love to have the nested scope feature, I think it's only
right to point out that the above can be rewritten as something like this
in Python 2.5:
def spam():
local_A = do_work()
result_1 = yield
On 7/6/06, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's the reason I think this keeps coming up, and why Guido's just use a
class argument doesn't really address the actual problem that's taking place.
(And note that I've recently gone on record as doubting that argument myself.)
When you
On Jul 6, 2006, at 5:04 PM, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
As much as I'd love to have the nested scope feature, I think it's
only
right to point out that the above can be rewritten as something
like this
in Python 2.5:
def spam():
local_A
On 7/6/06, Evan Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Talin wrote: I propose to create a new type of scoping rule, which I will call explicit lexical scoping, that will co-exist with the current implicit scoping rule that exists in Python today.
I'd like to toss one more variant into the mix.If we
At 07:04 PM 7/6/2006 -0500, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
As much as I'd love to have the nested scope feature, I think it's only
right to point out that the above can be rewritten as something like this
in Python 2.5:
def spam():
local_A =
40 matches
Mail list logo
