# [APROG] local

Richard Godard (rgodard@divsun.unige.ch)
Fri, 1 Dec 1995 19:53:16 PST

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    >Okay, but I still say you should do it in-db with $local:object(name)
    >instead of with some server hack to handle &local references (which will have
    >the effect of making your core less portable, not more).  If you set
    >$local:object(name) to return $list_utils:assoc(this.local_objects,args[1])[2];
    >(in the representation you posted, at least) then you'll be done, poof,
    >just like that, without the need for any strange server mods.

    Hmmmms it seems there is some big misunderstanding.

    I *never* spoke about a server hack. All what I said can be done in-db by
    making set_verb_code(), verb_code() and eval() wiz only and enforcing the
    programmers to use, example, $compiler:set_verb_code(),
    $compiler:verb_code(), $compiler:eval(), that would do all the adequates
    substitutions.

    Since those substitution will be done by regexp matching, that's why I
    asked if some regexp wiz were interested (and some are :-)

    BTW I don't want $list_utils:assoc(this.local_objects,args[1])[2]. I prefer
    the $local.name approach... of course it can lead to a zillion of
    properties object.

    What is done at E_MOO is to have $core_refs == {"$sys", "$player", ... }
    and $core_objs == {#0, #6, ... }... those list are updated when requested
    or when a new object is corified (and I guess when a prop on #0  is
    deleted). I think it's faster and easier to maintain than the way that lead
    to use $list_utils:assoc.

    >Why not just use the simple verb above?  It's both more flexible and more
    >compatible with existing MOOs, IMHO.  And it doesn't make assumptions about
    >the database (for example, what if $local doesn't even exist?  What will
    >&foobar evaluate to then, E_INVIND or something?)

    BTW if $local doesn't exist $local:object(name) will not help you more than
    &name reference :-)
    In this case I don't think the verb approach is more flexible.

    I like to be able to type $player_class:(verb)(@args)... what I would like
    now is to be able to wrtie code with &frands_player_class:(verb)(@args)...