Why the sudden appeal to security?

The tradition of messing with the text of error messages has a long history and hasn't hurt anyone.

Now if I was suggesting putting a flight simulator into the VM, that would be stupid.

Can you name a single good reason this should happen (other than making perl6 a joke)?

MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"

I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).

** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

There is no reason, but humans are not strictly reasonable creatures. Funky error messages satisfy an emotional need, not a logical one.

----
I wanted to explore how Perl's closures can be manipulated, and ended up creating an object system by accident.
-- Schemer

Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated

I will forever miss the lp#: printer on fire error in the Linux kernel. :-(

Makeshifts last the longest.

Are you going to maintain the VM?

I'm not following you here.

Do you think the perl6 developers like this idea?

I have no idea.

(btw did you ask)

What does that have to do with this thread? If you read my post, I didn't ever say I was seriously considering requesting these features? I just asked people what they would find amusing. You know, funny?

I can't cite specific examples, but I guarantee that it probably has.

I originally wrote up some personal abuse to direct at you regarding this statement, but I stopped when I realised that there is something seriously wrong with your attitude, and that it does much more damage to the field of security than mine does. You are following a well worn path of making things up and then not justifying them. On the crazy scale, that's getting close to attempting to patent the numbers '0' and '1', and claiming that the government spies on your dog.

I'm being serious here. The field of security has too many odd practices in it, and a lot of them are there because people have made something up and then claimed that it is true, without the justification.

The problem with your statement isn't the lack of proof. It's the lack of a threat assessment. You have to be able to say 'Humour is a security threat because somebody might laugh so hard that they spill their drink on the keyboard'. And then you need to provide a damage assessment, like 'The keyboard will have to be replaced for a cost of $10'. Then you have to make a probability assessment like '1 in 100 will laugh at the joke, 1 in 100 of those will spill their drink'. So the total cost to the perl community of humour will be a few hundred dollars per really good joke.

Your point about undocumented features sounds good on the surface, but I'll bet you can't follow through. There is no sane argument that can possibly link funny error messages (or functions) to a compromise of the VM/compiler/program. If it turns out to be possible, then it is a fault in the VM/compiler's security design, not the fault of the joke.

But instead of considering all that, you just thought "I don't like this guy, so I'll make something up and call it a security issue. That'll shut him up". However you have revealed yourself first as a dilettente. Back up a bit and consider what effect your attitude has on development.

Update: Rudeness removed.

____________________
Jeremy
I didn't believe in evil until I dated it.