On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 11:29:40AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I was figuring the taint/notaint pragma would control taint checking, while
-T would control taint setting. Probably not the best way--might be worth
unconditionally setting the taint status so a use/no taint would do the
right
At 12:51 PM 8/2/00 +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:56:48AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
What I was thinking of was something along the lines of a lexically scoped
pragma--"use taint"/"no taint". (We could do this by sticking in an opcode
to set/unset the tainting status,
At 11:57 PM 7/31/00 -0700, Matthew Cline wrote:
Something else which might be useful for tainting would be something like:
taint_var($foo);
no_taint_var($bar);
With this, any value assigned to $foo would become tainted, and any value
assigned to $bar would become untainted.
While
I respectfully request that one list be picked for this topic and
discussion confined to that one list even if it should occasionally
spill into the other bailiwick. Or perhaps it's a candidate for a new
working group.
If all messages are CC:ed to all lists, then simply have p5p reborn
(and the
Please explain how having a no taint block would still keep the spirit
of not making untainting easy?
Just add a no taint at the top of ones code, and the -T goes away.
chaim
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS I think I'd prefer to leave untainting to regexes.
DS What I was
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 10:42:54PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
existence of a $^T variable for controlling tainting in the same way
that $^W controls warnings.
So put in an RFC. :)
Dan-
Ask and ye shall receive...in POD format ala Tim...
I think this is
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:43:05PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
Let me just say that Larry has said in the past that untainting was
deliberatly left difficult to do, on the basis that something which
can have serious effect (ie security) should not be
Dan Sugalski wrote:
existence of a $^T variable for controlling tainting in the same way
that $^W controls warnings.
So put in an RFC. :)
Dan-
Ask and ye shall receive...in POD format ala Tim...
BTW, I've posted this to both lists because your reply was. However,
since $^T wouldn't
