I think some flavor / iterations of lambda bot has used it for example. On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 1:44 PM Jaro Reinders <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do agree that Safe Haskell would be useful even if it was only used for > enforcing type safety and avoiding accidental use of unsafe features, but > the > paper [1] makes it quite clear that one of the main goals is to safely > execute > untrusted code: > > "Safe Haskell makes it possible to confine and safely execute untrusted, > possibly malicious code. By strictly enforcing types, Safe Haskell allows > a > variety of different policies from API sandboxing to information-flow > control > to be implemented easily as monads. > [..] > We use Safe Haskell to implement an online Haskell interpreter that can > securely execute arbitrary untrusted code with no overhead." > > Cheers, Jaro > > [1] https://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/terei:safe-haskell.pdf > > On 13-01-2023 18:06, Carter Schonwald wrote: > > Indeed type safety is exactly what it’s for! The other notions of safety > were > > never part of the goals. And it was designed so that the end user could > decide > > which codes they deem trustworthy. > > > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 6:04 PM davean <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > The only part of Safe Haskell I ever really cared about was type > safety. > > That's what matters, I think. > > > > I've wanted to use it a number of times and played with it, but it's > never > > actually managed to become an important part of anything for me. > > So take that as you will. I'd love it if it worked well, its issues > have > > limited what I attempt, but at the end of the day it's never hurt me > too > > bad to not have it. > > > > > > -davean > > > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 7:14 AM Tom Ellis > > <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 08:33:04PM -0700, Chris Smith wrote: > > > This conversation reminds me of a parable I encountered > somewhere, > > in which > > > someone declares "I don't understand why this decision was > ever > > made, and I > > > we should change it", and someone responds, "No, if you don't > understand > > > the decision was made, then you don't know enough to change > it. If you > > > learn why it was decided that way in the first place, then > you will have > > > the understanding to decide whether to change it." > > > > That parable is Chesterton's fence: > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence > > < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence> > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-devs mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-devs mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
