[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Risky local variable mechanism
From: |
Luc Teirlinck |
Subject: |
Re: Risky local variable mechanism |
Date: |
Fri, 3 Feb 2006 22:34:02 -0600 (CST) |
Richard Stallman wrote:
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, because it allows the safety to depend
on both the variable _and_ its value:
>From `(elisp)File Local Variables':
These rules can be overridden by giving the variable's name a
non-`nil' `safe-local-variable' property. If one gives it a
`safe-local-variable' property of `t', then one can give the variable
any file local value. One can also give any symbol, including the
above, a `safe-local-variable' property that is a function taking
exactly one argument. In that case, giving a variable with that name
a file local value is only allowed if the function returns non-`nil'
when called with that value as argument.
Sincerely,
Luc.
- 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