Cute idea (in a rather dramatic blog post): randomly generate strings for PL keywords, and apply the same transformation to your source code.
This prevents code injection: https://blog.polyverse.io/introducing-polyscripting-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-code-injection-fe0c99d6f199
(I suppose you could brute force, and they don't say if it breaks eval.)
miniblog.
Related Posts
31
When a tool supports both regular expressions and literal strings, which should be the default?
If you default to regex, users can match more strings than they realise (e.g. `foo.txt`) or less (e.g. `foo(bar)`).
I typically see regex as the default, but I prefer the opposite.
I still find C-style format strings to be more readable than Rust format strings.
"Player %s has score %d" vs "Player {} has score {}".
The former feels a little easier to visualise how it will look in practice.
Have I missed anything? Every format string specification I've ever looked at is surprisingly big.
I've released difftastic 0.48! Highlights in this release:
* Subword highlighting in replaced strings! This is a big improvement in many situations.
* Better Scala parsing
* Better Haskell handling
