Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 01:03:52PM -0800, Father Chrysostomos via RT wrote:
> If I volunteer to write the new fix, do you mind if I apply my fix to
> blead now? I’ll leave the PL_reginterp_cnt hack in sv_2pv for now and
> simply repeat it in pp_regcomp. (Removing the hack from sv_2pv has
> enough implications to make my head spin.)
That's ok.
> Is there any chance your incomplete work could be merged to blead?
>
> After all, it’s already better that what we now have in blead.
I'd prefer not to. We're only 3 weeks away from user-visible changes
freeze, and 2 months away from 5.16-RC0, so it's highly likely that the
rest of my planned work won't make into 5.16. Which would mean we have a
major release which has two completely different types of user-visible
re_eval behaviour, depending on whether it's code in a literal pattern or
not. For example:
/(?{ $x = "}" })/; # this now works
$code = q/(?{ $x = "}" })/;
/$code/; # this gives an "unbalanced }" error
Also, I am unclear as to whether the 'use re eval' security mechanism
works 100% correctly in this in-between state; I know it will be secure at
the end when I rip out the PL_reginterp_cnt mechanism, but I haven't
bothered to ensure safety while its in a hybrid state.
--
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system
of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the
masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."
-- Dennis, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next