1 Dec 2006 01:05
Re: Ruby/Python/REXX as a MUCK scripting language
Cameron Laird <claird <at> lairds.us>
2006-12-01 00:05:08 GMT
2006-12-01 00:05:08 GMT
In article <ekel45$351$1 <at> upsn250.cri.u-psud.fr>, Laurent Pointal <laurent.pointal <at> limsi.fr> wrote: >Fred Bayer a écrit : >> >> Tony Belding wrote: >>> I'm interested in using an off-the-shelf interpreted language as a >>> user-accessible scripting language for a MUCK. I'm just not sure if I . . . >>> there's the security issue that really worries me. . . I have to be >>> able to limit what the interpreter can execute. I can't have my users >>> running scripts that access the console, access the filesystem or >>> sockets directly, or call libraries or other binaries outside the MUCK. >>> >>> Is this practical? I'm thinking of Ruby or Python for this, if they >>> can meet the requirements. >>> >> >> Don't forget Lua: www.lua.org >> It fulfills your requirements and is easily embedable. >> > >I Agree with F.Bayer, when reading OP post, I immediatly think about Lua. > > > Does Lua have an appropriate security model--a sandbox or such? Fond though I am of Lua, such would be news to me.(Continue reading)
Best and Thnx
Idris
On Nov 30, 3:11 pm, "Christoffer Sawicki"
<christoffer.sawi... <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > if leapi%4 == 0 && (leapi%400 == 0 || leapi%100 != 0)
> > puts leapi
> > else
> > end
RSS Feed