Re: risky local variable mechanism

[Luc Teirlinck]

Jonathan Yavner wrote:

   What exactly is the problem with the current system?

Richard only said that "it was not reliable enough".  There seems to
be a big sense of urgency and importance about this, however.

   What is the minimum change needed to solve the current problem?

I believe that it seems clear from previous postings that Richard is
not interested in a "minimum change" type solution.

   Are there file-local variables with safe values erroneously
   declared unsafe?

I do not believe that we are currently worrying about that.  We are
worrying about mistakenly considering dangerous things safe.

I _believe_ that Richard is mainly concerned with certain variables,
whose value can be a function that Emacs could later call, slipping
through the risky-local-variable-p mechanism.

The new mechanism, which requires an explicit 'safe-local-variable
property for a variable to be considered safe by default, might also
not only prevent this easy type of abuse, but might also prevent
potential more sophisticated types of attack.

Sincerely,

Luc.