Re: RFC: On-the-fly tainting via $^T

[Dan Sugalski]

At 02:52 PM 8/1/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>Please explain how having a no taint block would still keep the spirit
>of not making untainting easy?

Hadn't thought that much about it. That is an issue which'd need to be 
dealt with if this proposal goes anywhere, which it very well might not.

> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>DS> I think I'd prefer to leave untainting to regexes.
>
>DS> What I was thinking of was something along the lines of a lexically 
>scoped
>DS> pragma--"use taint"/"no taint". (We could do this by sticking in an 
>opcode
>DS> to set/unset the tainting status, as well as the warning status, and 
>so on)
>DS> Taint checking is disabled in a no taint block. Whether we still set the
>DS> taint status on a scalar could depend on the -T switch, so data would 
>still
>DS> be tainted in a no taint block.
>
>--
>Chaim Frenkel                                        Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]                                               +1-718-236-0183


                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk