In article <ekel45$351$1 / upsn250.cri.u-psud.fr>,
Laurent Pointal  <laurent.pointal / limsi.fr> wrote:
>Fred Bayer a ?crit :
>> 
>> Tony Belding wrote:
>>> I'm interested in using an off-the-shelf interpreted language as a
>>> user-accessible scripting language for a MUCK.  I'm just not sure if I
			.
			.
			.
>>> there's the security issue that really worries me. . .  I have to be
>>> able to limit what the interpreter can execute.  I can't have my users
>>> running scripts that access the console, access the filesystem or
>>> sockets directly, or call libraries or other binaries outside the MUCK.
>>>
>>> Is this practical?  I'm thinking of Ruby or Python for this, if they
>>> can meet the requirements.
>>>
>> 
>> Don't forget Lua: www.lua.org
>> It fulfills your requirements and is easily embedable.
>> 
>
>I Agree with F.Bayer, when reading OP post, I immediatly think about Lua.
>
>
>

Does Lua have an appropriate security model--a sandbox or such?
Fond though I am of Lua, such would be news to me.