220 10877 <6304925a-1d12-41ca-84a7-2ab6761fdda6@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thibaut Lutz Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Protect Lambda functions against reflection Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 07:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 65 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <6304925a-1d12-41ca-84a7-2ab6761fdda6@isocpp.org> References: <108c47a2-d952-4f84-a347-923b2ab742ad@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3493_27400847.1401199220756" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1401199236 26849 80.91.229.3 (27 May 2014 14:00:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 14:00:36 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC66PHON7ACRB5NUSKOAKGQE5XGMTXQ@isocpp.org Tue May 27 16:00:30 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-oa0-f71.google.com ([209.85.219.71]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WpHvT-000051-KN for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 May 2014 16:00:23 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-oa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id m1sf48794493oag.10 for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:00:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=MWtD/wBGECwh6BgK4cgN3+MYUoSIKUkfSdpAp8dXU9M=; b=HiSg5qGKKorkc02OudGBIAbcNiTyY+rA4Ej1gEVK+UyNdeGpIH81fZSqqMg/SWh/XY k4AdxMs6t6C+NB8Iz4Bl/83YjPh37Xy3mPyXM3JmEPAbEScD28TGpYHNQnMcqCawtQ/z KwLq60iDNj7EbrriJTQGV460mgN0aof5LpXX0EnEG+dBhEAyQy/JjMLjRllynl3RxYrI eiL9suO/l9zH69/mDq6+sd0i1ZuaHiNmgCS6tD8Per4hiGjBXOWaT4/HDsmB1SscCyYW HQw4oLtUwVGamelRIA1yGD3Ut2X8GtsS36OSMQ9Rc1cF4ihJBo3uq/PD7S63ORZjEIL9 NxBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence :mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=MWtD/wBGECwh6BgK4cgN3+MYUoSIKUkfSdpAp8dXU9M=; b=PkYSo+T1CywMFnp/p+Yzro7K/wIDcT5DOwpS+y4Rpi8hfC69XS6azJxG75u2O74w+9 3QUj5KmPT1Tj7n73VJ4YNlOn13pkHoeL9bXUxt9G6LxREhxGbwHnrdHZ4ELQ/hWevWb+ 18EtBkV7TUu4psFFcYe1MqjrgBPTm6mQFYspu+0VaUFNAC1g2OIgKzFUVB79DQlUDy4e +9nacDgR+CPzBbGzuqTQKTW+RPFwMl6So+NVWPwwsoRSacGTmz3UY2Nyu3qUs2TFIM74 5GxAUpFSexczJwK0jropgudanaHYzWs7u6BAuIqLKpU/x6tu/ZdDXQBQuFCAFOHd2ZLM Lfvw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQksYp7V0ovhri6KTBHK4NQ28wNEJR363RKOKIveNOctZzdbOuJ7zu75+DeSlN7A6BolnFUu X-Received: by 10.182.91.79 with SMTP id cc15mr13655164obb.13.1401199222687; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:00:22 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.38.133 with SMTP id t5ls3107371qgt.43.gmail; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:00:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.51.231 with SMTP id u94mr5467qga.34.1401199221800; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:00:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: thibaut.lutz@googlemail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:10877 Archived-At: ------=_Part_3493_27400847.1401199220756 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Reflection shouldn't be a means of bypassing access control > Agreed, but my point was that access control is underspecified for by-copy entities in the context of reflection: according to the current spec, they could be public and are not const even for non-mutable lambdas. We currently rely only on limited accessibility to guarantee local reasoning. > However, we don't need such wording changes yet. > Fine, I'll wait for reflection to get in the standard to re-post this issue ;) -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. ------=_Part_3493_27400847.1401199220756 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reflection sh= ouldn't be a means of bypassing access control

Agreed, but my point was= that access control is underspecified for by-copy entities in the context = of reflection: according to the current spec, they could be public and are = not const even for non-mutable lambdas. We currently rely only on limited a= ccessibility to guarantee local reasoning.
 
However, we don't need such wording chan= ges yet.

Fine, I'll wait for reflection to get = in the standard to re-post this issue ;) 

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
------=_Part_3493_27400847.1401199220756-- .