mixin D code into D code

[janderson]

Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 07:44:06 +0200, John Reimer <terminal.node at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 07:36:23 +0200, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>>
>>> I believe there must be a strict distinction between tools which just work with data or code, and tools which run code. The sole definition of a compiler is transform human-readable code to machine code - not run any of those outside the purpose of generating other code or data.
>>>
>>> Unit tests are a separate issue, because to run them the user must specify a switch on the compiler's command-line - in which case he is well-aware that code will be run. Thus, if any such feature does get implemented, the compiler should not execute any code and give off an error instead, and force the user to specify a switch which allows this, to prevent any naive mistakes and annoyances.
>>>
>>> That, or write in big letters on the DMD download page... "This compiler may run some of the compiled code" in big red letters. But that'll just scare more people off...
>>>
>> Hmm... so is not possible that rdmd.exe (rdmd on linux) might commit the
>> same sort of security breech?  It's even packaged with the compiler?  Is
>> it safe?
> 
> rdmd is on the other side of the "line" which I described - its base purpose is to run code, while the compiler's purpose (unless explicitly specified by the user) is to manipulate code. If we are to continue thinking this way, why not eliminate the "executable" attribute on Unix filesystems and assume all files are executable? The user surely knows what is he doing. It's simply common safety practice.
> 
> Either way, allowing the compiler to run potentially dangerous code should at least be optional (however [my] common sense would say that it should be disallowed unless manually enabled). Imagine the problems this would cause with remote compiling systems, for example at ACM contests.
> 

Some good points.  With great power comes great responsibility.  Its a 
good idea to be able to turn off the responsibility when you want it.

I've got nothing against a switch however I think others may feel that 
once an extremely powerful feature like this gained a foothold, half of 
D wouldn't work if you disabled the option.

-Joel