Re: risky local variable mechanism

[Chong Yidong]

> What exactly is the problem with the current system?  Are there unsafe 
> variables erroneously declared safe?  Are there file-local variables 
> with safe values erroneously declared unsafe?  What is the minimum 
> change needed to solve the current problem?

See Richard's previous emails on this subject.  The rationale is that
it is safer to add safe values to a whitelist than to add risky
variables to a blacklist---you wouldn't know if you missed a dangerous
variable.

> Again, if files.el and unsafep.el do not use the same mechanism, Emacs 
> will have two definitions for the same concept ("safe variable") which 
> will lead to either security holes or user annoyance.

It's unlikely that making the file local variable mechanism stricter,
while keeping unsafep.el the same, will open up new security holes
that didn't already exist.  Anyway, it is pretty easy to change
unsafep.el to reflect the changes to files.el.