Hello,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> There are several issues IMO. First, some are subrs, so handling
> keyword arguments is going to be painful. Second, keyword arguments are
> inelegant IMO compared to:
>
> (set-port-encoding! port (file-encoding port))
>
I do
Andy Wingo skribis:
> On Thu 31 Jan 2013 06:06, Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> From: Mark H Weaver
>> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:45:28 -0500
>> Subject: [PATCH] Do not scan for coding declarations in open-file.
>
> The patch looks good to me but I am concerned about t
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> My position is that the current coding-auto-detection behavior of
> 'open-file' is likely to lead to security flaws in software built using
> Guile. The issue is that programs that receive text from an untrusted
> source, write those strings to a file, and then read them
On Thu 31 Jan 2013 19:58, Mark H Weaver writes:
>> My instinct is that we should not merge this patch without including a
>> way to enable the coding sniff; which seems to mean adding keywords or
>> somehow extending the arguments of:
>>
>> open-file
>> with-input-from-file
>> with-output-t
Hi Andy,
Andy Wingo writes:
> The patch looks good to me but I am concerned about the behavior
> change, and that it is inconvenient to get the previous behavior.
>
> My instinct is that we should not merge this patch without including a
> way to enable the coding sniff; which seems to mean addin
On Thu 31 Jan 2013 06:06, Mark H Weaver writes:
> From: Mark H Weaver
> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:45:28 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] Do not scan for coding declarations in open-file.
The patch looks good to me but I am concerned about the behavior
change, and that it is inconvenient t
ached a patch to fix this. Please consider it.
Thoughts?
Mark
>From f936b2553c809967fd6703d8ec8fc9a7ef7bd5af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark H Weaver
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:45:28 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Do not scan for coding declarations in open-file.
* libguile/fports.c (scm_
