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

# Re: Builtins [LPMOO]

- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 08:53:23 PDT
- From:
- Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
- Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
- In-Reply-To: <199509121249.IAA04267@alumni.ccs.neu.edu>

    On Tue, 12 Sep 1995, Robert Leslie wrote:

    >   - refuse to program the verb, but continue loading the db

    Will result in loss of code, like people that used an ascii() patch in
    the LMOO but wanted to use a LPMOO feature instead.  We are too lazy to
    port the code!

    >   - program the verb, replacing the unknown() with E_VERBNF:unknown()

    Without reading ahead, I think this is the best idea... or you could add
    a new error, E_BFNF?

    >   - program the verb, replacing the unknown() with "unknown()"

    Pointless.  You'll not only get incorrect values, but the program won't
    even get an error returned from the function....

    >   - allow any unknown() to exist, but always raise E_VERBNF upon execution

    Or E_BFNF?

    >   - allow any unknown() to exist, and bind the function at runtime; perhaps
    >     redirect it to #0:unknown()

    By far the best idea.  Then maybe raise E_BFNF if the verb isn't on #0.
    This will allow you to write some nifty things that seem like builtins,
    just to be compatable with other LambdaMOO builtins...

    - Kipp

References:

- Re: Builtins [LPMOO]

- From: Robert Leslie <rob@ccs.neu.edu>

- Prev: Re: Builtins [LPMOO]
- Next: Re: Builtins [LPMOO]
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index