>>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> $Config{osname}, I think. I'm not thrilled with that, mainly because it
DS> means loading up Config, which ain't cheap.
Why not have $Config hard coded into the executable? Perl has to have
it or know it. So why not make it part of the executable. Then moving
an executable around would carry the correct luggage.
>> However, this got me thinking. Here is an idea I'd like to see: The
>> existence of a $^T variable for controlling tainting in the same way
>> that $^W controls warnings. Now *that* would be cool. I realize the
>> current implementation of tainting requires it starts with the
>> interpreter, but hey we're rewriting the internals, right?
DS> So put in an RFC. :) Seriously, finer grain control over tainting's not
DS> unreasonable, and I can think of a few ways to do it, but they need to be
DS> designed in *now*, not later.
Just remember, Larry's dislike of making untainting easy.
I'd rather not have multiple characters. A option hash or even a longer
namespace would be more readable.
$Perl::Warnings{undef} = 1;
$Perl::Tainting = 1;
<chaim>
--
Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
