MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
Re: My problem with #90:moveto acceptable
On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 email@example.com wrote:
> At 11:42 AM 3/21/96 PST, John P. Wilson wrote:
> >I was trying to create new objects with 1.8.0p2 and the latest LambdaCore
> >and was getting this:
> >@create $note called test
> >#90:moveto acceptable (this == #2), line 15: Invalid indirection
> >... called from #1:accept (this == #2), line 2
> >... called from built-in function move()
> >... called from #4:@create (this == #2), line 41
> >(End of traceback)
> >So I looked and moveto is defined on #56, I eliminated #90:"moveto
> >acceptable" by:
> >@copy #90:moveto to #90:oldmoveto
> >@rmverb #90:moveto
> #56 I think is $wiz right? So wizards will be unmoveable, but players can be
> moved since #90 (which is Frand's player class) has a moveto that lets
> players @refuse move.
Actually, it's beening called as acceptable here (to determine if the
newly created object can be moved from #-1 to the player).
I don't know what neat security features Frand's has on it for
acceptable, but whatever they are John removed them in favor of the ones
on #6 (which is the next ancestor defining acceptable). The one on #6
defines anything that's not a player as acceptable. So, if I'm a
programmer, and I control object x, I can move object x to you, unless
object x is a player.
ResComp Network Support Technician, Bursley Hall
"Invisibility is in the eye of the beholder."
Home Page: http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~cunkel/
Subject Index |