Martin Jambon <m.jambon@ibcp.fr> writes:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Alain Frisch wrote:
> 
> > What you describe seems to be overkill for the purpose. You could simply
> > build a toplevel with a restricted standard library (without interaction
> > with the OS and without unsafe operations like Obj), disabled directives,
> > and use a wrapper to kill the toplevel when some timeout expires.
> >
> > What's wrong with this ?
> 
> Nothing's wrong with this in fact.
> The only difference is that the user wouldn't know which values are really
> unbound and which are simply discarded for security purposes.

you could replace all discarded function by a

failwith "unsafe";;


-- 
Rémi Vanicat
vanicat@labri.u-bordeaux.fr
http://dept-info.labri.u-bordeaux.fr/~vanicat
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners