Dan Sugalski wrote: > > >It might be nice if the result of a calculation was never tainted when the > >calculation was in a 'no taint' block. > > Yerk. No, that's bad. The data is still tainted--the fact that it flowed > through a "no taint" block doesn't make it any more trustworthy. Tainting > really can't be dealt with like that. Phew! I was hoping you'd say that, Dan! ;-) If we're just turning on and off taint *checking*, it might be worth noting that in whatever pragma name we choose: #!perl -T { no taintchecks; } Just want to plant the seed early. I can see "no taint" or "no tainting" being *really* confusing (unless it was "no taint 'checks'" or something). -Nate
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support iain truskett
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Alan Gutierrez
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support James Mastros
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Adam Turoff
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Supp... James Mastros
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI ... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI ... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI ... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support James Mastros
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Robert Mathews
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Robert Mathews
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Alan Gutierrez
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Robert Mathews
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Alan Gutierrez
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Supp... iain truskett
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI ... Alan Gutierrez