| 1 |
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:01:56 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:55:08 +0100 |
| 4 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:35:21 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > Could you point me to at least a single program not supporting |
| 8 |
> > > dots in useflags? My quick check shows that all PMs handle them |
| 9 |
> > > well, quse and euse as well. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Hrm, it's rather disappointing that they're accepted everywhere. |
| 12 |
> > That really shouldn't happen... My excuse for Paludis is that I |
| 13 |
> > never quite got around to passing in additional flags to validation |
| 14 |
> > of names, and dots are legal in exheres-0, so they're currently |
| 15 |
> > accepted everywhere. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> And may I remind you that lately you deliberately changed PMS for all |
| 18 |
> EAPIs to satisfy invalid paludis behavior? And you knew that it caused |
| 19 |
> actual breakages. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Huh? Not sure what you're on about here. Accepting invalid input is in |
| 22 |
the "annoying because it leads to broken code appearing to work" |
| 23 |
category, which is very different from "doing the wrong thing for valid |
| 24 |
code". PMS by and large doesn't mandate validation of input (since |
| 25 |
Portage doesn't do it at all). Think of it as being like C, where |
| 26 |
dereferencing an invalid pointer might still work (so it's an error |
| 27 |
for a program to do it, but not an error for a compiler to allow such |
| 28 |
an operation to succeed), as opposed to languages like Java that require |
| 29 |
that all memory accesses be checked. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives