<beneroth>
m_mans, in my system I also work with every user having a list of roles
<beneroth>
not sure yet if this will be the final concept. I'm still pondering about more granular permission settings.
<beneroth>
hi Regenaxer :)
<Regenaxer>
The problem is more to find meaningful permissions
<beneroth>
T
<beneroth>
I only work with roles so far. was good enough.
<beneroth>
meaning some code does check if the user has a certain role
<beneroth>
do you also have permissions Regenaxer ? and roles are groups of permissions?
<cess11_>
Same. Pondered adding some 'be mechanism for smaller adjustments to permissions but haven't got around to trying it out.
<beneroth>
hm..(be).. good idea!
<cess11_>
It is quite powerful as it is done in the demo app.
<Regenaxer>
Yes, +Role has a list of permissions
<beneroth>
I see. more powerful than my current system.
<Regenaxer>
And the code has (may ThisPermission) all over
<Regenaxer>
no check for role
<beneroth>
yeah, of course.
<Regenaxer>
As in app/ or wiki/
<beneroth>
Role is then only for simpler configuration of user
<beneroth>
nice
<beneroth>
will probably switch to your system
<Regenaxer>
yes, role is just a container for permissions
<Regenaxer>
I think m_mans uses the same
<beneroth>
I don't think it is meaningful to make this more complicated.
<beneroth>
Well you could of course implement Role inheritance to make some things simpler to configure
<beneroth>
but it can't become more granular than permissions.
<Regenaxer>
T
<beneroth>
you just create more permissions then.
<Regenaxer>
The user must understand it, this is the main problem
<beneroth>
well, only the user who configures the roles/permissions. not every user, I think.
<Regenaxer>
What consequences it has if he gives permissions to a role
<beneroth>
T
<Regenaxer>
yes, only "Admin" user normally
<beneroth>
so permissions should have a description which is displayed on the configuration page :)
<cess11_>
If it fits security policies.
<beneroth>
cess11_, if what fits?
<cess11_>
Describing security settings on the configuration page. Perhaps it ought to be more hidden.
<beneroth>
well I would only display this to the guy doing the permission configuration.
<beneroth>
he has to know everything anyway
<beneroth>
also, not all security policies improve security. often it is more about security theater - making the impression of security and initiative, to have plausible deniability and/or insurance
miskatonic has joined #picolisp
<beneroth>
bbl
beneroth is now known as bene|off
<aw->
hi all
<Regenaxer>
Hi aw-
<aw->
Regenaxer: how do i use (patch) to append some code to the end of a function?
<aw->
i've tried many variations and couldn't get it working
<tankfeeder>
i give up with primes and combinations.
<tankfeeder>
enough is enough.
<aw->
¯\_(O_o)_/¯
<Regenaxer>
aw-, probably modify the whole expression?
<tankfeeder>
The only difference between this and the Knuth shuffle, is that {\displaystyle j} is chosen from the range 0 {\displaystyle \leq } j < i, rather than 0 {\displaystyle \leq } j {\displaystyle \leq } i. This is what ensures that every element ends up in a new position, as long as there are at least two elements.
<tankfeeder>
oops
<Regenaxer>
uh
<Regenaxer>
I don't remember the details of Knuth shuffle
<Regenaxer>
Shouldn't (de cipher (Lst D) rather be (de cipher (Str D) ?
<Regenaxer>
or Txt if you don't want to exclude chopped lists
<tankfeeder>
:)
<tankfeeder>
ok
<tankfeeder>
committing, right ?
<Regenaxer>
one moment
<Regenaxer>
let me try something
cess11 has quit [Quit: leaving]
<Regenaxer>
It tried to avoid the index
cess11 has joined #picolisp
<Regenaxer>
Hmm
<Regenaxer>
not shorter, but without first counting with 'index' and then traversing with 'get':
<Regenaxer>
(mapcar
<Regenaxer>
'((N)
<Regenaxer>
(or
<Regenaxer>
(pick
<Regenaxer>
'((A K) (and (= A N) K))
<Regenaxer>
A K )
<Regenaxer>
N ) )
<Regenaxer>
What do you think?
<Regenaxer>
I'm not sure which I like more
<tankfeeder>
i take yours for fun and profit.
<Regenaxer>
ok
<Regenaxer>
yep, fun :)
<Regenaxer>
Normally I prefer the shorter solution
<Regenaxer>
But 'index' always feels wrong to me
<freeemint_>
list is not big enough for idx to make sense.
<Regenaxer>
Most probably though 'index' is faster here
<Regenaxer>
yes, for short lists 'assoc' is better
<freeemint_>
It did just roughly benchmark it. Even if the cypher comes sorted the building is not worth it
<miskatonic>
are there still people complaining about the lack of arrays in picolisp?
<freeemint_>
Not me
<Regenaxer>
miskatonic, yes, sometimes
<freeemint_>
I can build my own arrays if i want to.
<freeemint_>
from Picolisp.
<freeemint_>
Regenaxer: Are you mad at me?
<Regenaxer>
why?
<freeemint_>
Our interaction in the last two days was not as joyfull as it is normally
<Regenaxer>
I just don't have so much time
<freeemint_>
i see
<freeemint_>
I was not able to save the algorithm you helped me with yesterday. So i wrote a function generated a finite number of nested loops which do the same work
rob_w has quit [Quit: Leaving]
miskatonic has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)]
beneroth has joined #picolisp
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
orivej has joined #picolisp
karswell_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]