Tony Belding wrote: > I'm interested in using an off-the-shelf interpreted language as a > user-accessible scripting language for a MUCK. I'm just not sure if I > can find one that does everything I need. The MUCK must be able to call > the interpreter and execute scripts with it, but the interpreter must > also be able to call functions in the MUCK code. And then there's 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 scripts > that access the console, access the filesystem or sockets directly, or > call libraries or other binaries outside the MUCK. > > Is this practical? I'm thinking of Ruby or Python for this, if they can > meet the requirements. >
Don't forget Lua: www.lua.org It fulfills your requirements and is easily embedable. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
