On Tuesday, 6 August 2024 at 09:27, Benjamin Außenhofer <kont...@beberlei.de> wrote:
> Am 06.08.2024, 09:43:21 schrieb Benjamin Außenhofer <kont...@beberlei.de>: > >> - If it still does not allow me to set exit as disabled_functions, then this >> creates an inconsistency > > That left me wondering why disabled_functions does not work, and I see the PR > adds a special case for both functions. So disabling them „could“ potentially > work. Indeed, as it would be a true function and disabling it would work as expected, as initially I did permit disabling it but I decided that might be a bit too weird for people. In fact one could even redefine it after disabing it (like any other internal function). It might be a bit harder to support redefining it after it has been disabled now that the implementation is at the parser level (as various people prefered). In any case, ant technical issue that eval() was having are non-existing here. Best regards, Gina P. Banyard
