define-public vs. define-safe-public

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

define-public vs. define-safe-public

Malte Meyn-3
Hi list,

is there a clear policy which functions are defined public or
safe-public? Asking for
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5517/ If I understand
correctly what define-safe-public does I don’t understand why some
things at the beginning of lily-library.scm are public and others
safe-public.

Cheers,
Malte

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
dak
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: define-public vs. define-safe-public

dak
Malte Meyn <[hidden email]> writes:

> Hi list,
>
> is there a clear policy which functions are defined public or
> safe-public? Asking for
> https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5517/ If I understand
> correctly what define-safe-public does I don’t understand why some
> things at the beginning of lily-library.scm are public and others
> safe-public.

Safe stuff cannot be used for breaching containment via Scheme, like
accessing files on disk.

Many functions that appear quite safe are not declared that way: this is
implemented rather cursorily.  The full LSR import gives a list of files
not working when using -dsafe; this list is humongous and does not
really reflect reality.  For anything serious, you'd rather rely on
containers.

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel