Re: Bug in @send in LambdaCore25Dec95.db

• Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 13:35:49 PST
• From:
  wizkid@borg.reshall.ksu.edu
• Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960321135136.5990B-100000@ren.us.itd.umich.edu> from "Christopher Unkel" at Mar 21, 96 11:30:32 am

Ok, I realize what you are saying ... I now walk through the chain 
doing the c[x][1] == #-1 && .. check to find the next non-builtin.
Thanks for pointing out the error in my reasoning. Another example
of coding and sleep not mixing :).

--- Zach Metzinger (Succubus)
wizkid@ksu.ksu.edu

> This will eliminate the tracebacks.  But (someone correct me if I'm 
> wrong) it doesn't perform the permission check that it used to.  If 
> callers()[2] is from a built-in, then it should look at whatever the next 
> element of callers() that does *not* represent a built-in, and apply the 
> :controls permission check to that entry.
> 
>   --Chris                           cunkel@engin.umich.edu
>     ResComp Network Support Technician, Bursley Hall
>     "Invisibility is in the eye of the beholder."
>     Home Page: http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~cunkel/

• Re: Bug in @send in LambdaCore25Dec95.db
• From: Christopher Unkel <cunkel@us.itd.umich.edu>

• Prev: Re: Bug in @send in LambdaCore25Dec95.db
• Next: Bug in entering editors under 1.8
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows