Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2010
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 02:36:22PM -0800, Reverend Chip wrote: > On 11/28/2010 2:31 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 02:26:51PM -0800, Reverend Chip wrote: > >> On 11/28/2010 2:34 AM, demerphq wrote: > >>> However if it means we have to validate the string every time we do a > >>> utf8 operation then I would say you are wrong. > >> Slippery slope fallacy. > > Why so? > > Because "validate" implies a level of caution that I have never > requested, and never will. At most I've requested "don't actually > crash" with a side order of "show me where I need to add protective > calls to utf8::validate", which would be satisfied by, for example, > avoiding invalid C pointers caused by bad utf8 and turning any > invalid-utf8-caused asserts to croaks. As you well know, avoiding Yes, which means that you are requesting that we either a: audit the code for every possibility of this happening or b: effectively play whack-a-mole by treating every instance of discovering that perl is crashing due to users using functions marked [INTERNAL] to produce invalid internal state as a core bug that needs fixing. which was *precisely* why I was asking "where do we stop?" and your answer seems to be "we don't". Nicholas ClarkThread Previous | Thread Next