From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA13957; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:50:16 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA13729 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:50:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from audi.ibcp.fr (audi.ibcp.fr [193.51.160.127]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g1KGoEH22520 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:50:14 +0100 (MET) Received: from pc-bioinfo1.ibcp.fr (pc-bioinfo1.ibcp.fr [193.51.160.63]) by audi.ibcp.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FB8FCC7 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:50:14 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:38:44 +0100 (CET) From: Martin Jambon X-X-Sender: To: Caml list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Safe Caml for online teaching In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Alain Frisch wrote: > What you describe seems to be overkill for the purpose. You could simply > build a toplevel with a restricted standard library (without interaction > with the OS and without unsafe operations like Obj), disabled directives, > and use a wrapper to kill the toplevel when some timeout expires. > > What's wrong with this ? Nothing's wrong with this in fact. The only difference is that the user wouldn't know which values are really unbound and which are simply discarded for security purposes. Martin ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners