RetroSearch Browse

Sat Jul 15 16:45:37 CEST 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-July/067463.html

On 7/14/06, Nick Maclaren <nmm1 at cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> "Guido van Rossum" <guido at python.org> wrote:
> >
> > OK, then I propose that we wait to see which things you end up having
> > to provide to sandboxed code, rather than trying to analyze it to
> > death in abstracto.
>
> However, the ORIGINAL proposal in this thread (to split off argv[0]
> and/or make that and the arguments read-only) is entirely different.
> That is purely a matter of convenience, cleanliness of specification
> or whatever you call it.  I can't imagine any good reason to separate
> argv[0] from argv[1:] by a sandbox (either way).

Sure. But that proposal has already been discussed (and found little
opposition). The thread then dispersed in a much less focused
discussion about the true purpose of the sys module..

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-July/067463.html below:

[Python-Dev] Handling of sys.args (Re: User's complaints)