Re: Safe Guile?

[thi <ttn at mingle dot glug dot org>]

Roland Orre writes:

 > No, at the moment there is no simple way to avoid getting all definitions
 > from the root guile module.
 > 
 > [snip]
 >
 > The only necessary addition which would be needed to the module system
 > would be a control option telling that you don't want the root module,
 > like:
 > 
 > [...]
 >
 > (define-module (my-safe-schme)
 > 	:norootmodule

i think allowing user extension of `define-module' is the way to go:
http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/guile/1999-10/msg00018.html

 > 	:use-module (safe-scheme))
 > ; Here in this module we can now only perform operations
 > ; we consider safe, but not e.g load-module, set-current-module etc
 > ; which would be too powerful, as a lot of other stuff which is
 > ; hard to have control over.
 > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
 >
 > [snip]
 >
 > We already have a powerful module system which is now also being
 > improved (rewritten?) by Jost and by defining security as modules you
 > can have a very strict and precise control of your security needs.

i hope module system (re)implementors consider a user hook, as it can be
used to construct a safe-guile (depending on user's definition of safe)
among other things, and helps to avoid current hackery required for true
(ie, complete) utility.

thi