Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264010AbUDFU4p (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:56:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264009AbUDFUyA (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:54:00 -0400 Received: from mail-ext.curl.com ([66.228.88.132]:28676 "HELO mail-ext.curl.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S264008AbUDFUxa (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:53:30 -0400 To: Timothy Miller Cc: Jesse Pollard , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kernel stack challenge References: <20040405234957.69998.qmail@web40509.mail.yahoo.com> <20040406132750$3d4e@grapevine.lcs.mit.edu> <407300C3.9050109@techsource.com> From: "Patrick J. LoPresti" Message-ID: Date: 06 Apr 2004 16:53:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <407300C3.9050109@techsource.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 990 Lines: 18 Timothy Miller writes: > I think 100K is rather large for an interpretor to be included in the > kernel, but putting that aside... I think we are all putting that aside for the moment. :-) > It's a limited number of people who would actually write these > policies. If those people follow certain coding rules, then we CAN > have such bounds, by convention. Yes, those bounds could be violated, > but if the programmer (not sysadmin -- they would never write these > things in LISP) breaks something, it's just a bug. Fair enough. But then I wonder how many of Lisp's advantages you would lose. I am having trouble imagining "statically bounded Lisp" without being so stylized as to hardly be Lisp at all. - Pat - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/