<html><head></head><body>It sounds to me as a question of authorization. Clients could potentially send arbitrary code to execute, and recipient node should be able to decide which clients are authorized for running the code on it.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On September 6, 2016 8:08:00 PM EDT, "Richard A. O'Keefe" <ok@cs.otago.ac.nz> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail"><br /><br />On 6/09/16 5:23 PM, Alex Arnon wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> Would an Erlang AST do it?<br /></blockquote><br />You missed the point.<br />We *have* an Erlang AST.<br />That can, of necessity, express ANYTHING that Erlang can.<br />The great benefit of a mini-language is that it CAN'T.<br />In general, such a mini-language<br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> is a *scrutible* data structure in which general<br /> Bad Things simply aren't expressible<br /></blockquote><br />Accepting code from a remote source is always a risk,<br />UNLESS it is tightly constrained so that you KNOW even<br />before you look that it can't be so very bad.<br />For example, if you want to write some sort of<br />distributed game, and have players send "scripts" for<br
/>their pieces to a game server, you want to KNOW that<br />the scripts execute in bounded time and can only do<br />game-related stuff.<br /><br /><hr /><br />erlang-questions mailing list<br />erlang-questions@erlang.org<br /><a href="http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions">http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions</a><br /></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>