On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:55:23 -0800, Chromatic wrote: > >I'd really like to be able to save comments from >source files as metadata. This has at least two >potential benefits. First, it >makes it much easier >to recreate the whole file from bytecode (especially >refactored bytecode). >Second, it makes it possible to pull out method >documentation in the Smalltalk or Python sense. > > Maybe metadata's not the place for this, but it >seems rather natural to me.
I always thought metadata in bytecode was the place for storing security/permission/capability related information about the compiled chunk. If we want Perl6 and Parrot to handle security and limited code sandboxes better than Perl5's Safe.pm, this is a basic requirement. I suggest LPC (the object-oritented c-like scripting langauge of LP Muds) as an example of a scripting language with good security that can handle multiple users inside a compilation engine gracefully. (And at the same time, implementing LPC wiht Parrot would be a good exercise for a more competent reader than me). This would add a secondary layer to the security implemented by Safe/Opcode-like opcode filters. The data in the segment would become part of the called function context so that it could check if the caller has significant capabilities to actually call the function and fail otherwise. Loading of mudules from within limited code sandboxes could be handled with the same kind of security checks. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com
