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 |