[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Can we expand the valid location of "Local Variables" ?
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Can we expand the valid location of "Local Variables" ? |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Mar 2020 23:36:09 -0400 |
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> > Specifying another file has a serious problem: you can't be sure
> > which file will get included.
> It'd be no more problematic than any other facility that supports including
> sub-files, for example texinfo.
It is problematic because this inclusion would take place in the mere
act of visiting a file. That is more sensitive than things that get
included when you _compile_ the file.
> Wait, here's another idea from the crazy-dept. Use a hash, like a md5
> or sha1 or some such of the file to be included. Before the inclusion,
> check the hash, error out if there's a mismatch.
> Local variables:
> @include-hash: f31785c629584f30116ff45aa681fa5318613fd9
> @include: FILENAME
> End:
That would make it safer, but you'd have to edit the file whenever
you change what you include.
I think it is better to achieve the desired safety by putting those
settings in the file itself, with something to say "search further back".
--
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Re: Can we expand the valid location of "Local Variables" ?, Richard Stallman, 2020/03/11
Re: Can we expand the valid location of "Local Variables" ?, Yuri Khan, 2020/03/23