MOO-cows Mailing List Archive


[ Re: bf wrappers and error handling]

------- Start of forwarded message -------
From: Pieter-Bas IJdens <>
Subject: Re: bf wrappers and error handling
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 00:22:47 PST
In-Reply-To: <> from "Andrew Bakun" at Mar 11, 97 01:25:35 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

>It won't suddenly break, true, but it will be incompatible with code which does
>use error catching.  I'm still of the opinion that your entire db should +d
>if you are using 1.8.0pX, since it's been out for over a year and I'm told
>even the latest lcore is entirely +d.  The only excuse is, in my opinion,
>laziness and/or actually wanting to write sloppy/unmaintainable code.

Okay, you are right. I'm very lazy. I became a wiz at the moo I'm doing this a
week ago, and I haven't even spent seven days, 24 hours rewriting all the -d
code! Tsk, lazy! Thanks for pointing this out, I'll improve my life. 

Okay, I think one can argue about this a lot, but since you actually make a
call in your code to set_verb_code() and not to $bf:bf_set_verb_code() I think
the server should actually make sure it is transparent. That was what my point
was, not that you all should go on writing -d code.

Oh, and if you feel the need to radicaly change how a builtin works I think
you hsould actually add a verb to one of the $.*_utils, or write a new builtin
rather than wrap it, so I'll just ignore that point if you don't mind.

------- End of forwarded message -------

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index