Re^2: RFC: CGI::Taintless

Somehow I think that CGI::Taintless isn't a very good name at all. Your focus should be on validating CGI params, with the side effect of untainting them. Maybe something along the lines of CGI::RegexValidate might be more appropriate as a name?

I personally believe that validating with regexen is fine and all, but the OP may want to extend his module to a more generic validating one allowing e.g. subs, arrayrefs (possibly to be matched against ~~) and whatever. Then I do know that actual untainting is performed by means of regexen, but then indeed it could be done so anyway, if those other "objects" match. Then he could name his module CGI::Validate::Untaint.

PS: [OT] I lost track of the ~~'s return value in list context issue, which you brought up to p5p: how did it end?

--
If you can't understand the incipit, then please check the IPB Campaign.

Comment on Re^2: RFC: CGI::Taintless Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: RFC: CGI::Taintless (~~ in scalar context) by moritz (Cardinal) on Sep 24, 2008 at 14:31 UTC
I lost track of the ~~'s return value in list context issue, which you brought up to p5p: how did it end? The answer in short was "we don't know if it's a bug or a feature because we don't know what ~~ should really do". (Not literally, though). The fine p5p hackers long wanted to review smartmatch semantics, and this question encouraged them to actually do it. aristotle is now investigating how the Perl 6 smartmatch semantics changed since the perl 5 version was implemented, and plans to give p5p some feedback. Then they (or we) will try to decide what the best semantics for Perl 5 are.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: RFC: CGI::Taintless (~~ in scalar context)
by moritz (Cardinal) on Sep 24, 2008 at 14:31 UTC

I lost track of the ~~'s return value in list context issue, which you brought up to p5p: how did it end?

The answer in short was "we don't know if it's a bug or a feature because we don't know what ~~ should really do". (Not literally, though).

The fine p5p hackers long wanted to review smartmatch semantics, and this question encouraged them to actually do it. aristotle is now investigating how the Perl 6 smartmatch semantics changed since the perl 5 version was implemented, and plans to give p5p some feedback. Then they (or we) will try to decide what the best semantics for Perl 5 are.

[reply]