[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Risky local variable mechanism
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Risky local variable mechanism |
Date: |
Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:34:39 -0500 |
Why not make anything risky, except those explicit settings which
are recorded in safe-local-eval-forms (and add something similar
for variables), and then make it easier to update those lists
when user is queried to approve local variables/forms
That could be a good approach.
Would someone like to implement this?
Note that we _already_ have a similar mechanism, which is more
flexible than the proposed one,
This seems to be a misunderstanding. You're talking about underlying
mechanisms; we're talking about user interfaces.
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, (continued)
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/01
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Chong Yidong, 2006/02/07
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/02/07
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Chong Yidong, 2006/02/07
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/02/07
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Chong Yidong, 2006/02/07
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Chong Yidong, 2006/02/07
- Re: Risky local variable mechanism, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/02/08