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

Re: leakproof

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, 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 21:34:34
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 02/22/2012 04:29 PM, Marc Munro wrote:
> 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.

I also made this suggestion later in the day.

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

Let's not go there.



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2012-02-22 21:46:02
Subject: Re: determining a type oid from the name
Previous:From: Marc MunroDate: 2012-02-22 21:29:36
Subject: Re: leakproof

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