
18 Jun
2015
18 Jun
'15
4:42 a.m.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015, at 07:21 PM, Dimitri DeFigueiredo wrote:
This is funny, so the constructor has the same name but is for different types. I think this is specially bad for security. I'm going to be paranoid about it now.
If you would like to give some more background on your use case, we may be able to suggest better ways to ensure safety through types. -Karl