a runhugs sandbox?

[Johannes Waldmann]

Keith:

> You might try a Unix-style way of doing it... use chroot(1) or
> chroot(2) to provide an environment within which the code can do what
> it likes, but be insulated from the rest of the system.

OK, I'll think about this.

Ideally I want the distinction (trusted / tainted code)
at the Haskell module (even identifier?) level,
because I want the test program to communicate with the test driver/logger,
which is a Haskell program as well, that *has* to do IO things.
With the above suggestion, they could only communicate 
via the OS (by writing files).

regards,
-- 
-- Johannes Waldmann ---- http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/~joe/ --
-- joe@informatik.uni-leipzig.de -- phone/fax (+49) 341 9732 204/252 --