[erlang-questions] What is the point of Spawn(Node, Fun) if Node has to have the same module loadable as a client node?

[John Doe]

Also don't forget that funs are actually closures, so it is necessary to
pass the context as well.

2016-09-07 13:15 GMT+03:00 Alex Arnon <alex.arnon@REDACTED>:

> I know we have an AST, my question should have been phrased "would the
> Erlang AST itself be appropriate?".
> Would it be appropriate in the scenario, where peer servers ship fun
> invocations around, without the need for security checks and constraints?
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe <ok@REDACTED>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6/09/16 5:23 PM, Alex Arnon wrote:
>>
>>> Would an Erlang AST do it?
>>>
>>
>> You missed the point.
>> We *have* an Erlang AST.
>> That can, of necessity, express ANYTHING that Erlang can.
>> The great benefit of a mini-language is that it CAN'T.
>> In general, such a mini-language
>>
>>     is a *scrutible* data structure in which general
>>>     Bad Things simply aren't expressible
>>>
>>
>> Accepting code from a remote source is always a risk,
>> UNLESS it is tightly constrained so that you KNOW even
>> before you look that it can't be so very bad.
>> For example, if you want to write some sort of
>> distributed game, and have players send "scripts" for
>> their pieces to a game server, you want to KNOW that
>> the scripts execute in bounded time and can only do
>> game-related stuff.
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20160907/c575ad01/attachment.htm>