MOO-cows Mailing List Archive


RE: Please resolve these two passages...

Judging from what you're saying you're confusing the documentation for the moo server with the Lambdamoo core functionality.  @notedit is a lamba core verb, and is not constrained to operate in ways entirely identical to the server core.  You may not be able to @notedit a property you own on an object you don't own (in which case the @notedit verb needs to be fixed) but you should be able to set the property directly using ' ; = value'

From:  Doug Elias[]
Sent:  Friday, February 16, 1996 10:28 AM
To:  moo-cows
Subject:  Please resolve these two passages...

G'day ...

In section 1.2.2 (Properties), we read:
     Symmetrically, the 'w' bit controls whether or not non-owners can
     add or delete properties and/or verbs on this object.

A bit farther on, though:
     Read permission lets non-owners get the value of the property
     and, of course, write permission lets them set that value.

i've verified (with a note) that, when "w" is set, a non-owner can
give the note a new property:
  @prop note.my_text "this is my text"
and can remove that property, but can *not* notedit it successfully.

The only way i can resolve this according to the two passages above,
is that "set that value" does not include "*re*set that value"...i
guess this makes sense, but then how does one "share" control over
objects, in general?  i had assumed previously that this was the
function of the "w" bit, but that doesn't seem to be the case; my
working assumption, now, is that "sharing" is not a general
characteristic, and has to be explicitly programmed for specific
classes.  Would someone please verify this, or set me straight?


  __|_              Internet:
dr _|_)oug          USmail:     Sci.Comp.Support/Cornell Theory Center
  (_|                           737 Rhodes Hall/C.U./Ithaca/N.Y./14853-3801
  (_|__             MaBelle:    607-254-8686   Fax: 607-254-8888

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index