In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Laurent Pointal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Fred Bayer a écrit :
>>
>> 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
.
.
.
>>> 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.
>>
>
>I Agree with F.Bayer, when reading OP post, I immediatly think about Lua.
>
>
>
Does Lua have an appropriate security model--a sandbox or such?
Fond though I am of Lua, such would be news to me.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
