[Xmonad] darcs patch: Run.hs, SshPrompt.hs, ShellPrompt.hs: mv... (and 3 more)

[David Roundy]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 07:32:05AM -0400, Gwern Branwen wrote:
> On 2007.10.24 05:50:39 -0500, Spencer Janssen <sjanssen at cse.unl.edu> scribbled 0 lines:
> > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 19:40:04 gwern0 at gmail.com wrote:
> > > Tue Oct 23 20:13:41 EDT 2007  gwern0 at gmail.com
> > >   * Run.hs, SshPrompt.hs, ShellPrompt.hs: mv runInXTerm back into Run.hs
> > > per suggestions
> > >
> > > Tue Oct 23 20:16:28 EDT 2007  gwern0 at gmail.com
> > >   * Run.hs: +my suggested runInTerm general function
> > >
> > > Tue Oct 23 20:18:56 EDT 2007  gwern0 at gmail.com
> > >   * Run.hs: specialize runInXTerm to use runInTerm per my mailing list
> > > suggestion
> > >
> > > Tue Oct 23 20:39:11 EDT 2007  gwern0 at gmail.com
> > >   * Run.hs: do my usual segregation into safe and unsafe runInTerms
> >
> > Applied.
> >
> > I don't like these "safe" and "unsafe" names, please consider something more
> > descriptive.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Spencer Janssen
> 
> Does anyone have any suggestions? I originally chose safe/unsafe because
> I regard not going through the shell as safer, less error-prone. What
> would be better? 'shell'/'shelless'?

I'd definitely use the word "shell" in the name.  Using a shell really is
no less safe than using no shell, in my opinion, unless you are using
potentially hostile input.  But if we're exec-ing potentially hostile
input, it takes a lot more than passing the arguments in verabatim to
ensure that the resulting action is safe.

How about something like:

execShell and exec, which describe what is actually being done?  Or just
append ViaShell to the functions that go through the shell?
-- 
David Roundy
Department of Physics
Oregon State University
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/xmonad/attachments/20071024/1ee42466/attachment.bin