3 ms·
Of note is that Perl had this since at least 1998. See http://gunther.web66.com/FAQS/taintmode.html http://gunther.web66.com/FAQS/taintmode.html But of course
by _pmf_ 13y ago
Of note is that Perl had this since at least 1998. See http://gunther.web66.com/FAQS/taintmode.html http://gunther.web66.com/FAQS/taintmode.html
But of course we just laugh about Perl and pat ourself on our backs with our safe new languages because we clearly know much more than those anachronistic neckbeards.
- Silhouette 13y agoBut of course we just laugh about Perl and pat ourself on our backs with our safe new languages And there is some justification for that: if those "safe new languages" are doing the type checking at compile time, that is better than only finding out you have a safety issue when you fail at run time.
- brohee 13y agoThe issue I have with Perl taint checking is that data is untainted by a group match within a regexp. It's not explicit enough and it's easy enough to find legitimate code with accidental untainting of dangerous data. Ruby requires an explicit untaint call, and IMHO it's the right way to go.