[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A (Low-Level) Opaque Object Proposal for R5RS

To: will@ccs.neu.edu
Subject: Re: A (Low-Level) Opaque Object Proposal for R5RS
From: Michael R. Blair <ziggy@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 96 13:32:10 EDT
Cc: ziggy@ai.mit.edu, rrrs-authors@martigny.ai.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <3185E657.5B32@ccs.neu.edu>; from "William D Clinger" at Apr 30, 96 10:07 am
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]

> Will Clinger writes:
>
> If OPAQUE-DOWN is not reserved, then [I can capture the passkey]...

Excellent. Thanks for confirming that this is the sort of thing folks
might worry about.  (I was beginning to think I was just slipping into
a paranoid schizophrenic delusion trying to anticipate what the opacity
proponents might worry about.)

So is there any security reason that OPAQUE-TYPE might need to be reserved?
I wouldn't think so since there is no passkey argument for that. The worse
you could do is make some formerly working code signal an error if you
muck around with OPAQUE-TYPE, no?

References:
- Re: A (Low-Level) Opaque Object Proposal for R5RS
  - From: William D Clinger <will@ccs.neu.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: A (Low-Level) Opaque Object Proposal for R5RS
Next by Date: Why would anyone want opacity?
Prev by thread: Re: A (Low-Level) Opaque Object Proposal for R5RS
Next by thread: Re: A (Low-Level) Opaque Object Proposal for R5RS
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread