- Original Message -
From: "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >If more speed is needed, make the part that's currently too slow
> >_simpler_, not _more_complex_.
>
> I think you'll find it rather more useful to make the part that's
currently
> too slow *faster*, rather than more or les
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 03:17:47PM -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
> > That's fine for the VM and the support libraries, but I'd *really*
> > like to see the parser/front-end in Perl. There are dozens of RFCs
> > that require some non-trivial extensions to the par
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 02:40:31PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Are there any better reasons than "It would be nice?"
>
> Can there *be* a better reason than "It would be nice"? Seriously,
> niceness is a damned fine goal.
No, it isn't. Practical wins over nice any day. Fast probably wins over
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Simon Cozens writes:
> > > Nice!
> > Efficient!
> > Practical!
> >
> > Choose two.
>
> I take this oblique comment to mean that it'd bloat the op-tree too
> much?
Well, suppose we simply add the -FOO (choose your letter) flag to
perl...
Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
>> It's possible, for example, for a tied/overloaded/really-darned-strange
>> variable to look true but still be false. If you do:
>>
>>$foo = $bar || $baz;
>>
>> and both $bar and $baz are objects, the 'naive' way is to ma
How much optimization are we talking about?
Currently, toke.c turns "foo$bar" into "foo".$bar before the parser or
anything else sees it. So any features implemented in the tokenizer have
to get smarter about remembering what they did.
If you do common subexpression elimination, one opcode may c
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Extend the window to turn on taint mode
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sep 14 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 227
Version: 1
Status: Developing
=h
> "SF" == Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SF> I suspect perl can do a much better job than it does now, but if you
SF> make it a requirement, you prevent many optimizations. I think the RFC
SF> should be very specific about when it applies and when it gets out of
SF> the way.
Expressi
I vaguely recall when Chip put that in. He worked pretty hard to
adjust the command line/#! option processing. (Something about
unsafe operations already being done before the script is read.)
You are asking for the first line of the input script be read before
any of the command line arguments a
> (Someone remind me, What is the point of -T if not running setuid?)
Being paranoid is never a bad idea because They are always out to get you.
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
On 14 Sep 2000, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> (Someone remind me, What is the point of -T if not running setuid?)
All you need to get root is an unprivilaged shell on anything but a
fully patched machine. A dumb Perl CGI running without -T is all you need
to get a shell.
Besides, I bet most online st
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 10:37:40PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> I vaguely recall when Chip put that in. He worked pretty hard to
> adjust the command line/#! option processing. (Something about
> unsafe operations already being done before the script is read.)
The crux of my proposal/request is
12 matches
Mail list logo
