[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Design principles and ethics
From: |
Pierre THIERRY |
Subject: |
Re: Design principles and ethics |
Date: |
Tue, 2 May 2006 00:33:06 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 |
Scribit Bas Wijnen dies 01/05/2006 hora 23:20:
> > > C. The child cannot have any capability that the parent couldn't
> > > gain access to.
> This is correct, but it isn't an extra requirement. Just like in the
> constructor, the child cannot receive a capability that neither the
> parent nor the instantiator possess.
Either you or I have misunderstood something in how a constructor works.
I had understood that the constructor is given a set of capabilities
along with the process it will instantiates. This capabilities could be
out of reach for the instantiator.
IIUC, it addresses the billing part of the confused deputy problem
description.
Confusingly,
Nowhere man
--
address@hidden
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics,
Pierre THIERRY <=
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/01
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/02
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Pierre THIERRY, 2006/05/02
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Tom Bachmann, 2006/05/02
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Bas Wijnen, 2006/05/02
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/05/02
- Re: Design principles and ethics, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/05/01
RE: Design principles and ethics, Christopher Nelson, 2006/05/01