[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs Lisp's future
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs Lisp's future |
Date: |
Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:17:15 -0400 |
However, I would argue that even in Emacs, string<->bytevector
conversions should be strict by default,
What is a "bytevector"? It doesn't appear in the Emacs Lisp
ref manual, so I suppose it is a concept from Scheme.
How would it relate into Emacs? Maybe your suggestion is a good one.
It doesn't matter how these raw bytes are encoded internally. No matter
what mechanism we use to accomplish it, propagating invalid byte
sequences by default is bad security policy.
As a general matter, the policy that programs should not get upset
when they see invalid UTF-8 seems more secure than the policy that
programs should not propagate invalid UTF-8. But, given the
situation, it isn't useful to debate that theoretical question.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, (continued)
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/12
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Richard Stallman, 2014/10/12
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Richard Stallman, 2014/10/12
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/13
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/10/13
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/13
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/11
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/09
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Richard Stallman, 2014/10/10
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Andreas Schwab, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/06
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Mark H Weaver, 2014/10/06
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Richard Stallman, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Florian Weimer, 2014/10/11
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Richard Stallman, 2014/10/05