
> > Ok, now I vote, that you don't implement "any" and use "opaque".
> > I don't think we want two types that do the same thing.
> > Is it that you like the name "any" more than "opaque" ?
> 
> No, it's that I want to deprecate "opaque" so that we can catch old
> uses that should not be there anymore.  If you look at your code and
> you decide that "any" is the correct semantics, then fine: change
> "opaque" to "any" and the warnings will go away.  But relatively few
> existing uses of "opaque" really mean "any", and I don't want the
> people who are using "opaque" to mean "cstring", "trigger", etc
> to keep using "opaque" for those other purposes.  The idea here is
> to force a security review.

That is what I have been trying to say, imho "any" should have the same 
NOTICE as opaque has, since it is potentially dangerous.
I would suggest a warning NOTICE for opaque and not depricate it.

Imho the NOTICE should *not* go away.

If we want "any" in the future, it should imho always be passed a "safe" 
Datum that includes type info. This will allow us to create a type "any"
that does not have the pitfalls of opaque. 

Andreas

Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:21:22 +0200
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in 