On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 06:41, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>
> Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well its already in.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well *that's* easily fixed. I think it's a bad idea, because it's
>>>> unclear what you should put there and what the security implications
>>>> are.
>>>
>>> I can't speak for its virtue, maybe Tim, Andrew?
> Regarding the naming of the params, I'm not keen to have more than one
> custom_variable_class for plperl. Within that, maybe we can bikeshed the
> names a bit. I don't have terribly strong feelings.
Hey! I don't think were quite to that nasty B word yet :) I would
argue that treating plperl and plperlu as the same language just
because it shares the same code is a mistake. But I hate the idea of
two custom_variable_classes for plperl(u) as well. Which is why I
quickly switched to plperl.on_plperl(u)_init. Any thoughts on those?
Again maybe people think the original names are fine... *shrug*.