atom feed15 messages in org.perl.perl5-portersRe: Pattern matching in SNOBOL4 (long...
FromSent OnAttachments
Mark-Jason DominusApr 15, 1998 10:23 pm 
Ilya ZakharevichApr 15, 1998 11:34 pm 
Moore, PaulApr 16, 1998 2:16 am 
Moore, PaulApr 16, 1998 2:49 am 
Chaim FrenkelApr 16, 1998 6:50 am 
Mark-Jason DominusApr 16, 1998 7:20 am 
Ilya ZakharevichApr 16, 1998 9:53 am 
Ilya ZakharevichApr 16, 1998 10:08 am 
Larry WallApr 16, 1998 10:41 am 
Chaim FrenkelApr 16, 1998 11:03 am 
Ton HospelApr 16, 1998 3:18 pm 
kst...@chapin.eduApr 16, 1998 4:41 pm 
Peter PrymmerApr 16, 1998 4:55 pm 
Ton HospelApr 17, 1998 1:39 pm 
Ton HospelApr 17, 1998 2:20 pm 
Subject:Re: Pattern matching in SNOBOL4 (long, digression)
From:Peter Prymmer (pv@forte.com)
Date:Apr 16, 1998 4:55:44 pm
List:org.perl.perl5-porters

thos@mail.dma.be, perl@perl.org Subj: Re: Pattern matching in SNOBOL4 (long, digression)

Ton Hospel wrote in response to Ilya Zakharevich:

When we have a patch-receptive pumpking (will we ever?), $& and friends will work in (?e ), so

'MISSISSIPPI' =~ /(is|si|ip|pi)(?e print $1 )(?!)/

will be the Perlian way.

I don't think I would like that too much. Now I quite often use the fact that you can do something like:

chomp($input=<STDIN>); $foo =~ /$input/;

where whatever the user types, he can't damage the integrity of your program. With that proposed extension he would be able to execute anything he wants. I would at least want a letter I could put after the // to forbid (?e ) execution.

Not a bad thing to bring up - how many cgi scripts out there implement an equivalent thing?