Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: leakproof

From: Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Subject: Re: leakproof
Date: 2012-02-22 21:29:36
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 12:44 -0400, Andrew Dunstan 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.

As the developer of veil I feel marginally qualified to bikeshed here:
how about "silent"?  A silent function being one that will not blab.

There are also quite a few synonyms in the thesaurus for trustworthy.  I
kind of like "honorable" or "righteous" myself.



pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2012-02-22 21:34:34
Subject: Re: leakproof
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2012-02-22 21:19:30
Subject: Proposal: PL/pgPSM for 9.3

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group