RetroSearch Browse

Sun Nov 21 04:52:19 CET 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-November/105774.html

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Michael Foord
<fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
>> I'll see if I'm still of the same opinion after I sleep on it, but my
>> first impression of the docs was that they slightly oversold the
>> strength of the "doesn't execute arbitrary code" aspect of the new
>> function. The existing caveats were all relating to when getattr() and
>> getattr_static() might give different answers, while the additional
>> caveats I was suggesting related to cases where arbitrary code may
>> still be executed.
>
> I'm happy to change the wording to make the promise less strong.

Your latest changes may have actually made the stronger wording
accurate (I certainly can't think of any loopholes off the top of my
head). If you did still want to soften the wording, I'd be inclined to
replace the word "avoids" with "minimises" in the appropriate places.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-November/105774.html below:

[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r86566 - in python/branches/py3k: Doc/glossary.rst Doc/library/inspect.rst Lib/inspect.py Lib/test/test_inspect.py Misc/NEWS Misc/python-wing4.wpr