On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 05:46:05PM -0800, David Terei wrote: > On 9 November 2012 17:36, Ian Lynagh <i...@well-typed.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 04:34:20PM -0800, David Terei wrote: > >> > >> + Safe Haskell, however, <emphasis>does not offer</emphasis> compilation > >> + safety. > > > > Is this a bug? A few lines lower down the docs say that "Compiling and > > executing untrusted code" is one of the two use cases for Safe Haskell. > > What matters is, does this problem make Safe Haskell unusable. I'd > argue no,
FWIW, I'd say yes, as it doesn't allow the use cases I can think of (OK, it does work for lambdabot/tryhaskell, but only because they only allow toy expressions to be evaluated). > We as a community seem to be somewhat OK with this > though given Hackage allows anyone to upload a new package which > contains code that can be executed by people at compile time. But that's another good potential use-case for safe Haskell. e.g. a future version of cabal-install might by default build packages with -safe flag(s), perhaps with the exception of packages that are marked as need-to-be-trusted and gpg signed by someone the user trusts. Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list Cvs-ghc@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
