From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2013-03-21T18:16:13+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby tainting on primitives

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Nicolas V. <lists@ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> I understand now that we cannot taint Fixnums in the current Ruby
> implementations.
>
> My question is whether there is an inherent conceptual reason not to
> support this behavior based on the language model Ruby tries to provide.
> You said that tainting Fixnums is not possible because Fixnums because
> they are implemented as singletons for performance reasons. But this is
> an implementation detail, not something that's part of the language
> model.

It may be an implementation detail in other contexts but when it comes
to attaching state to a singleton it is an important feature because
all users of the singleton will be affected.

> Let me formulate it like this: if I wrote a patch for Ruby to support
> tainting Fixnums with no performance overhead, would you accept it, or
> do you think tainting Fixnums semantically does not make sense? If not,
> why?

I would not accept it because of the unwanted side effects.  I have
explained that in my previous posting.  Since you did not react to it
I have no idea whether you read or understood it.  If not, please do.

Cheers

robert


-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/