[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unsecure assoc calls
From: |
Carl Sorensen |
Subject: |
Re: Unsecure assoc calls |
Date: |
Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:41:06 -0600 |
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your work on this. I think this is excellent architectural
support for the future.
On 9/20/09 2:11 PM, "Michael Käppler" <address@hidden> wrote:
> I think what now should be done is to check all assoc-get calls whether
> they should use strict_checking or not.
> In some cases this can be quite difficult IMHO and it's a far more
> time-consuming task than what I've done. Maybe Mark can do this? I think
> he digged pretty deep into the scheme code recently.
I don't think that it's worth spending time on this. I believe that
virtually all of the assoc-get calls as currently written are written to
allow defaults without throwing a programming error, and do not need
strict_checking.
As future developments come, or as people are working on code to improve it,
if they want to add strict_checking, that would be fine.
Thanks,
Carl
- Re: Unsecure assoc calls, (continued)
- Re: Unsecure assoc calls, Neil Puttock, 2009/09/13
- Re: Unsecure assoc calls, Michael Käppler, 2009/09/13
- Re: Unsecure assoc calls, Neil Puttock, 2009/09/16
- Re: Unsecure assoc calls, Michael Käppler, 2009/09/17
- Re: Unsecure assoc calls, Neil Puttock, 2009/09/17
- Re: Unsecure assoc calls, Michael Käppler, 2009/09/18
- Re: Unsecure assoc calls, Neil Puttock, 2009/09/18
- Re: Unsecure assoc calls, Michael Käppler, 2009/09/20
- Re: Unsecure assoc calls,
Carl Sorensen <=
- Re: Unsecure assoc calls, Ian Hulin, 2009/09/11