220 10942 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ville Voutilainen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Protect Lambda functions against reflection Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 02:27:11 +0300 Lines: 37 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <108c47a2-d952-4f84-a347-923b2ab742ad@isocpp.org> <7ef3d3da-0c1d-443c-88d2-656b91937170@isocpp.org> <68f98b78-8bd4-48e0-9e1d-47cfc0492764@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1401319640 17165 80.91.229.3 (28 May 2014 23:27:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 23:27:20 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRBUHBTGOAKGQEY7M6NDA@isocpp.org Thu May 29 01:27:13 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-yh0-f72.google.com ([209.85.213.72]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WpnFZ-0008Bf-AO for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 May 2014 01:27:13 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-yh0-f72.google.com with SMTP id f73sf50229404yha.7 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:27:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=N1yfVKX2RWAnhjPOO6llvgTvi/S2lFLM9UdsGx0hOAo=; b=JVBVPxwtrRi2lUgkPmvvhFlgXDMYOtDdGvTSNFPIxk/LY4E05y+ywnXHOKt8EyV7cO pmTeI8B7sThQBqMjtVZqbEVYQZlaA6Oa11L/T4Q9N+HnVMWP/NJ1pcpL3HQRq5DyANKn xSBefG2F3rlK3TrRrmrVnkUeHc2/RDc+Er1cDj8Tf+3u0gpSoefHPCX+8knvl0OzTF8N e2BeDbbsAomDf66GOtqssZk03/CX6mlxJo7wvoOTNNiDRHfB1UQ25nNYqn4BDmuFJul8 8nCmWU3CMepP1E8E9/7pSJKWwwZT4p6LsZGZpXADKeYNXknU2ODcbpmrirUobTW1BXIz lzNQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmK2d8Hu/MrCPkcNNVPWBuMw6qWf3sCvrmbvTLEFBxgIAlpph3oAIbXvDrAf4rjL/FzOCI6 X-Received: by 10.58.25.99 with SMTP id b3mr1474930veg.28.1401319632341; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:27:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.102.180 with SMTP id w49ls335513qge.3.gmail; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:27:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.67.201 with SMTP id s9mr4394379qai.29.1401319631829; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-qg0-x230.google.com (mail-qg0-x230.google.com [2607:f8b0:400d:c04::230]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o8si2535896qay.4.2014.05.28.16.27.11 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 28 May 2014 16:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c04::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c04::230; Original-Received: by mail-qg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id i50so19937555qgf.7 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:27:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.96.51 with SMTP id j48mr4436797qge.24.1401319631682; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.224.181.5 with HTTP; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:27:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: ville.voutilainen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c04::230 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ville.voutilainen@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.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:10942 Archived-At: On 29 May 2014 00:15, 'Jeffrey Yasskin' via ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Diggory Blake wrote: >> Also, access modifiers are not there for security reasons - it's trivial to >> bypass them if one really wanted to - they're there to prevent accidental >> misuse, or in other words, human error, although they also serve as a useful >> form of documentation. > > Yep. And the fact that Java and C# -- languages which _could_ use > access control for security purposes -- choose to allow reflection to > override that control, is an argument that C++ shouldn't try either. I > also haven't heard big complaints from Java users that this use of > reflection causes problems. Ah. My understanding of java reflection seems outdated, I didn't know that it's possible to use setAccessible. I'm not thinking of security. I'm thinking of what a class designer is trying to express, and what the repercussions of allowing violations of that are. I still think it would be worthwhile to carefully consider what we want to enable, and certainly what we want to enable by-default/conveniently. Providing a too-convenient way to bypass access controls via a reflection mechanism will sure as hell mean such tricks will spread like a wildfire. I'm not going to debug the end result, and neither is any of you, regardless of how convenient it may seem to be at first glance. -- --- 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/. .