| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Jeff Janes" <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Don Baccus" <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: leakproof |
| Date: | 2012-02-22 16:14:34 |
| Message-ID: | 4F44C00A0200002500045A18@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Returning to the original point, I've come to the conclusion that
> "pure" isn't the right way to go. The trouble with "leakproof" is
> that it doesn't point to what it is that's not leaking, which is
> information rather than memory, as many might imagine (and I did)
> without further hints. I'm not sure any single English word would
> be as descriptive as I'd like.
Discreet?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discreet
I guess the risk is that people would confuse it with "discrete".
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-22 16:19:13 | WIP: proof of concept patch for fixing quantified regex backrefs |
| Previous Message | Jay Levitt | 2012-02-22 16:10:38 | Re: pg_test_timing tool for EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead |