In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:11:21 -0600, Tony Belding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >declaimed the following in comp.lang.python: > >> the security issue that really worries me. . . I have to be able to >> limit what the interpreter can execute. I can't have my users running > > That is going to be the killer... Python no-longer ships with a >"secure sandbox" module, because there were always ways to work around >it. . . . Tcl's the one language in this area that has gone the farthest with its "safe interpreter" <URL: http://wiki.tcl.tk/4204 >, and Tcl is well-supported under Mac OS. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language Timothy Goddard
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language Stephan Kuhagen
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language Cameron Laird
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language Fred Bayer
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting langua... Laurent Pointal
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting la... Cameron Laird
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scriptin... Laurent Pointal
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scr... Cameron Laird
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language rony
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language i
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language Jeremy C B Nicoll
- Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language johnzenger