[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# [APROG] $local (was Re: Suggestion, re: Minimal.db)

- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 14:54:12 PST
- From:
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

    At 12:16 12/1/95, Bill Garrett wrote:
    >> are still essential. I was thinking of generalizing the use of $local and a
    >> & prefix. The idea would be that every programmer could @local-corify
    >> mygeneric as myfoobar. You would then have   &myfoobar == $local.myfoobar
    >> == mygeneric. The trick is to change set_verb_code so and eval so that they
    >> do the &myfoobar -> $local.myfoobar conversion and to have verb_code do the
    >> $local.myfoobar -> &myfoobar conversion.
    >> Any regexp wiz interested?
    >
    >$local is very often the dumping ground for such objects; there's just no
    >commonly-accepted standard for this practice, though.  Short of telling
    >everyone to port from one single MOO, it will come down to object numbers
    >in the end I think.  Yr right, it is a standards problem.

    Then should we work on a standard solution ?

    I was thinking of & as a prefix character because I'm used to it (which is
    obviously the less logical reason of using it :-) There are probably better
    candidate, like ^ or _
    Any suggestions?
    What would be the best prefix to avoid conflicts with existing code?

    Janus

Follow-Ups:

- Re: [APROG] $local (was Re: Suggestion, re: Minimal.db)

- From: Bill Garrett <bill@yeehaw.com>

- Prev: Re: [APROG] $local
- Next: Re: [APROG] $local (was Re: Suggestion, re: Minimal.db)
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index