consequence of not using risky_shell

Martin Bjorklund <>
Mon Feb 14 15:06:08 CET 2005


Magnus Fröberg <> wrote:
> I would recommend not making this flag an undocumented feature
> as it is really needed.
> Actually, I think the default behaviour should be the old
> in an interactive system at least.

I agree 100%.

> > (see http://www.erlang.org/ml-archive/erlang-questions/200412/msg00045.html and follow-ups)

I read the original thread now (not then :( )  It isn't mentioned why
the original behaviour was removed.  I'm sure there's some better
reason than that tracing can be difficult when processes are
starting!!!  It is of course extremely useful to get a shell as
quickly as possible so you can inspect the starting system.

The solution to the trace problem can't be to start the shell even
later!  Why not take this one more step and remove the shell
completely b/c people might interfere with the system...

Please make the old shell default, and introduce a new flag
-safe_shell or something.


/martin



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list