On 26 October 2011 09:04, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> I while ago I saw a commit to Safe Haskell changing modules from
> default Unsafe to default Safe.
>
> This seems wrong to me (and Duncan agreed on IRC) -- in security the
> usual advice is to use white listing instead of black listing. The
> re
On Wednesday 26 October 2011, 20:54:46, Johan Tibell wrote:
> Right, but that's not how it used to work.
Oh.
> As soon as any module (e.g. in base) had a Trustworthy pragma you
> needed to ghc-pkg trust base to use base, regardless if you wanted
> to use Safe Haskell or not.
Hmm. In that case,
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Daniel Fischer <
daniel.is.fisc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand this. If I don't use Safe Haskell, the compiler should
> ignore all the Safe/Trustworthy/Unsafe pragmas no matter what's the
> default.
> Only if I explicitly choose to use Safe Haskell
On Wednesday 26 October 2011, 19:50:09, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Thomas Schilling
>
> wrote:
> > I while ago I saw a commit to Safe Haskell changing modules from
> > default Unsafe to default Safe.
> >
> > This seems wrong to me (and Duncan agreed on IRC) -- in secur
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Thomas Schilling
wrote:
> I while ago I saw a commit to Safe Haskell changing modules from
> default Unsafe to default Safe.
>
> This seems wrong to me (and Duncan agreed on IRC) -- in security the
> usual advice is to use white listing instead of black listing. T
I while ago I saw a commit to Safe Haskell changing modules from
default Unsafe to default Safe.
This seems wrong to me (and Duncan agreed on IRC) -- in security the
usual advice is to use white listing instead of black listing. The
reasoning is that if you forget to white list something safe, it
