MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
Re: Feature request
At 17:33 1/12/96, Zachary DeAquila wrote:
>While everyone is doling out feature requests for poor belabored Pavel, I
>add a fairly non-esoteric request to the list: an 'o' flag for verbs, by
>that stands for 'overrideable'. !o verbs cannot be overriden by children
>object - I think it may be easiest to implement as an E_PERM if someone
>hrm.) tries to define an overriding verb on a child, or similarly if they
>try and chparent()
>an object with such a verb defined.
>I think this would increase security a *lot*. Comments?
I implemented that in-db... it was more a programming exercise than
something useful (because of the overhead involved when you chparent an
object or rename a verb)
If there is to be a 'o' flag in the server, how do you suggest to implement
them ? What happens when you change the verb perms from +o to -o and that
there are kids that define verbs with the same name ? What about
chparenting objects (given that a verb that is +o in a hirerachy can be -o
in another) ?
I personnally took an approach a la 'c' flag for properties... (maybe not
the best, but the 'easiest' to implement).
Speaking f flags... what about the 'p' one for having passable/non-passable
verbs ? (just curious... does anyone implemented it in-db ? :-) ;-)
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
-- Bill Gates, 1981
Subject Index |