For the record. The reason for the thread was not to start a lisp vs XML
discussion
but to find out if anyone knew a simple way to ruggedise eval.
I know the difference between read and eval. It was the "#.(evilcode)" I
wanted to avoid.
Setting *READ-EVAL* to nil was the answer I was looking for.
As for ruggedising the reader further I am not sure it is worth it.
(If the system crashes I just reset it. It is mallicious worms breaking in
I want to avoid.)
Anyhow thanks for all the responses.
John
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:31:13 +0100, John Thingstad
<··············@chello.no> wrote:
>
> For the record. The reason for the thread was not to start a lisp vs XML
> discussion
> but to find out if anyone knew a simple way to ruggedise eval.
> I know the difference between read and eval. It was the "#.(evilcode)" I
> wanted to avoid.
> Setting *READ-EVAL* to nil was the answer I was looking for.
> As for ruggedising the reader further I am not sure it is worth it.
> (If the system crashes I just reset it. It is mallicious worms breaking
> in I want to avoid.)
> Anyhow thanks for all the responses.
>
> John
sorry, read, of cource ;)
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:31:13 +0100, John Thingstad
<··············@chello.no> wrote:
>
> For the record. The reason for the thread was not to start a lisp vs XML
> discussion
> but to find out if anyone knew a simple way to ruggedise eval.
> I know the difference between read and eval. It was the "#.(evilcode)" I
> wanted to avoid.
> Setting *READ-EVAL* to nil was the answer I was looking for.
> As for ruggedising the reader further I am not sure it is worth it.
> (If the system crashes I just reset it. It is mallicious worms breaking
> in I want to avoid.)
> Anyhow thanks for all the responses.
>
> John
sorry, READ, of course ;)
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/