Fred Bayer a écrit : > > Tony Belding wrote: >> I'm interested in using an off-the-shelf interpreted language as a >> user-accessible scripting language for a MUCK. I'm just not sure if I >> can find one that does everything I need. The MUCK must be able to >> call the interpreter and execute scripts with it, but the interpreter >> must also be able to call functions in the MUCK code. And then >> there's 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 scripts that access the console, access the filesystem or >> sockets directly, or call libraries or other binaries outside the MUCK. >> >> Is this practical? I'm thinking of Ruby or Python for this, if they >> can meet the requirements. >> > > Don't forget Lua: www.lua.org > It fulfills your requirements and is easily embedable. >
I Agree with F.Bayer, when reading OP post, I immediatly think about Lua. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
