From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: The `risky-local-variable' blacklist Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:24:31 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1094066737 31330 80.91.224.253 (1 Sep 2004 19:25:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:25:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 01 21:25:30 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1C2ajY-0005Aq-00 for ; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 21:25:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C2aoU-0003do-RB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:30:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1C2ank-0003M9-Ky for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:29:48 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1C2anj-0003Kz-Ej for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:29:47 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C2anj-0003Ki-9R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:29:47 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C2aid-0000AU-TA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:24:31 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1C2aid-0003sr-Ey; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:24:31 -0400 Original-To: Davis Herring In-reply-to: (message from Davis Herring on Tue, 31 Aug 2004 17:07:02 -0600 (MDT)) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:26704 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:26704 In summary, in my Emacs (21.3.1) "emacs -q --no-site-file" yields only 498 non-risky user variables (as tested by `user-variable-p', `boundp', and `risky-local-variable-p'), Does this 498 include only variables that are preloaded or autoloaded? I would guess so. The actual number of user-option variables defined in Lisp files must be much larger. To pick the first example I could find, does that 498 include makefile-macro-assign? That variable is safe. > Here's an idea that might do the job and be acceptable. Each time > Emacs sees a variable/value combination that is new for the current > user, it asks the user to confirm that combination. Any given > combination only needs to be confirmed once by any given user. This > could reduce the repetitive nuisance down to the point where people > will (1) accept the burden and (2) not zone out when they see the > questions. > > What do you think? That sounds like it would work, but it also sounds like a lot of overhead (and more user-data to keep up with in one dot-file or another); since users could of course put `safe-local-variable' declarations into their .emacs, it might not be necessary. Combined with the arbitrary filter feature (where the `safe-local-variable' property stores a check-function through which to run the file's value for the variable) and a simple interface (like that provided for disabled commands), my original suggestion would be almost entirely equivalent. As regards the work we would have to do, they are not even similar. One involves studying every variable. The other does not.