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