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

# Re: [PROG] E_PROPNF v. E_VERBNF

- Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 08:02:46 PDT
- From:
- Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
- Content-Length: 989
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
- In-Reply-To: <9510280341.AA19944@saul6.u.washington.edu> from "Michael Brundage" at Oct 27, 95 08:41:17 pm

    > Suppose there an object #A defines a property .example and a verb :example(),
    > and suppose #B is a child of #A.  Then although #B inherits both of these from
    > #A,
    >
    > ;property_info(#B, "example")
    > => okay
    >
    > ;verb_info(#B, "example")
    > => E_VERBNF  (assuming that #B doesn't itself define a verb :example() )
    >
    > Shouldn't both of these return errors, or else both be okay?  I know that
    > inheritance has no effect on the rwxd flags of a verb, while an inherited
    > property can have different rwc values than its parent's property, but still,
    > it seems a little inconsistent....

    The properties are actually passed down to the children. However, the
    verbs are not... Its pointless and a waste of space. The verb is called
    on the ancestor which has that verb.

    For example, if I'm a $wiz, the property .email_address is on my object,
    as it is with and object that is a descendant of $player. But, the verb
    @who is _not_ on me, it is just called from $player.

    Get it?

    Joe

Follow-Ups:

- Re: [PROG] E_PROPNF v. E_VERBNF

- From: Michael Brundage <anomaly@u.washington.edu>

References:

- [PROG] E_PROPNF v. E_VERBNF

- From: Michael Brundage <anomaly@u.washington.edu>

- Prev: Re: [PROG] E_PROPNF v. E_VERBNF
- Next: Re: [PROG] E_PROPNF v. E_VERBNF
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index