[778] in Coldmud discussion meeting

root meeting help first first in chain previous in chain previous next next in chain last in chain last

Re: fork() vs send()

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sun Aug 20 20:51:47 1995 )

From: bellegj@python.cs.orst.edu
To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 20 Aug 95 13:39:03 PDT."
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 95 17:48:45 PDT

> Hmm.. I'm not sure I see the need for it.  The function wouldn't do
> anything new, and a general-purpose word like "send" just doesn't hint
> at looping either.

It's not supposed to say "loop".  It says "send this message to these objects".
Using a for loop says "send this message to these objects, in this order".  

Let's take a specific example. $place.announce. It's purpose is send a .tell 
a bunch of objects.  Currently it does this with a for loop.  This is wrong, it
imposes and ordering on the calls that should not be there. (Although without
tasks, it's the best we can do.)  Morover, once tasks (or something similiar) 
added, this method and all similiar ones will need to be changed.  By creating
a send we are able to change just the implementation of send whenever a new
facility becomes available.  

At the moment send would have to be implemented by a for loop.  But once tasks
become available we can change it and everything using send will be start using

I'm not particularly attached to the name send. Maybe split would be better.

-- Jeff Bellegarde (bellegj@mail.cs.orst.edu)