On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:28:40AM -0600, Chris Dolan wrote: > On Feb 12, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote: > > >It would also be 'really nice' have a glob(3) like method that is > >implemented as a wrapper around *dir methods so the semantics are > >portable. > > My outsider opinion is that parrot should focus on exposing basic OS > functions (opendir, readdir, closedir) and leave the high-level > functions (ls, glob) to the languages or libraries. My justification > for that opinion is security lockdown. If there are more op-level > ways of accessing the system, then there are more features that > sandboxes like Safe.pm have to disable. Even more critical is the > potential for creep. If sandboxes have to follow a moving target, > then it could make it challenging to make security promises.
I think your slightly confusing OPs and PMCs. Presumably the *dir
functionality would be implemented as OP codes while glob(3) would be
implemented in the OS.pmc. For all intents and purposes PMCs can fill
the role of what you referred to as libraries.
Doc pointers:
http://www.parrotcode.org/docs/ops/
http://www.parrotcode.org/docs/pmc/
Cheers,
-J
--
pgpaQH6o2RsPs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
