On 6/30/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote:> 1) Is removing 'file' from the builtins dict in PyInterpreterState (and> maybe some other things) going to be safe enough to sufficiently hide> 'file' confidently (short of someone being stupid in their C extension
> module and
Brett Cannon wrote:
> 1) Is removing 'file' from the builtins dict in PyInterpreterState (and
> maybe some other things) going to be safe enough to sufficiently hide
> 'file' confidently (short of someone being stupid in their C extension
> module and exposing 'file' directly)?
>
> 2) Changing
On 6/30/06, Ka-Ping Yee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Brett Cannon wrote:> On 6/30/06, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > >>> object.__subclasses__()> > [..., ]
> >> > Maybe this one won't work if __subclasses__ is forbidden, but in general> > I think there *will* be
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On 6/30/06, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>> object.__subclasses__()
> > [..., ]
> >
> > Maybe this one won't work if __subclasses__ is forbidden, but in general
> > I think there *will* be a way to find this object.
>
> Yeah, that's b
On 6/30/06, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Brett,On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 11:48:36AM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:> 1) Is removing 'file' from the builtins dict in PyInterpreterState (and> maybe some other things) going to be safe enough to sufficiently hide 'file'
> confidently (short of som
Hi Brett,
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 11:48:36AM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
> 1) Is removing 'file' from the builtins dict in PyInterpreterState (and
> maybe some other things) going to be safe enough to sufficiently hide 'file'
> confidently (short of someone being stupid in their C extension module
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> This thought was sparked by the piece on failure-oblivious computing
> in today's Linux Weekly News about this paper:
> http://www.usenix.org/events/osdi04/tech/rinard.html.
The paper is also available from one of the authors at
http://www.cag.lcs.mit.edu/~rinard/paper/osd
On 6/29/06, A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 11:48:36AM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:> My worry, as has been from the start, is containing 'file'. The ``del> __builtins__`` bug for 'rexec' started me as skittish towards hiding stuff
> from the built-in namespace. And
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 11:48:36AM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
> My worry, as has been from the start, is containing 'file'. The ``del
> __builtins__`` bug for 'rexec' started me as skittish towards hiding stuff
> from the built-in namespace. And knowing how easy it tends to be to get at
> objects
I have gotten some questions from people about why cripple 'file' (and probably 'socket' if they cared), asking whey I didn't just remove the 'file' built-in from built-ins. Problem is that I still want to provide some protection for files.
So an option I have been thinking of is making sure 'file
10 matches
Mail list logo
