Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

[Dan Sugalski]

At 02:20 PM 9/27/00 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:09:20PM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> > Really, I don't see why we can't
> > just have a 'use taint' and 'no taint' pargma.
>
>Because taint mode needs to be turned on REEELY early, like before
>pragmas are compiled.

'no taint' does make sense, though 'use taint' might not except to locally 
undo 'no taint'. Whether it's feasable in a program that's not invoked with 
taint checking depends on how much the parser depends on the potentially 
icky before parsing's complete. Of course, we can always maintain tainting 
status and just ignore it unless we're in a taint-checking block.

                                        Dan

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