MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
RE: Please resolve these two passages...
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 07:59:04 PST
From: Ron Stanions <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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 ' ; #obj.property = value'
From: Doug Elias[SMTP:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 1996 10:28 AM
Subject: Please resolve these two passages...
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
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
Subject Index |