Re: allout patch - more safe-local-variables, plus autoloads

["Ken Manheimer" <ken.manheimer@gmail.com>]

On 4/21/06, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

> "Ken Manheimer" <ken.manheimer@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > in many cases, the qualifying criteria is already present, in the form
> > of the custom-type information:
> >
> > seems to me we're heading down the road of duplicating the mechanisms
> > of the custom type system, and that we should be using it.  i strongly
> > suspect that the custom types of customizable variables are
> > appropriate as safety criteria in many cases, as well.  we wouldn't
> > want to assume that, but i suspect it would be very useful to make it
> > easy for authors to use the custom-type criteria for this purpose.
>
> I don't see that.  If a variable can be dangerous, I think it very
> unlikely that all uses conforming to its customization type would be
> harmless.

why not?  seems to me that the customization criteria are in
substantial part about safety - a good author is preventing their
users from shooting themselves in the foot with problematic custom
values.  the only difference is that less attention is likely to be
paid to users who are deviously *trying* to blow their foot off.-)  (i
wonder how often current safety tests exceed their variable's
customization tests, when present?  i suspect not many.)

the crucial thing is that the safety criteria should never *conflict*
with the customization criteria, and in fact, should always obtain for
it.  it may be that people need to be thinking more stringently about
their customization criteria, but the safety concerns apply there as
much as anywhere.

i could be wrong here - counter examples welcome.  for what it's
worth, it happens to work quite nicely for allout's variables.
--
ken manheimer
ken.manheimer@gmail.com
http://myriadicity.net