Re: call_function() and $bf_FOO()

• Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 18:45:32 PDT
• From:
  Don Schwarz <darkowl@darkowl.pr.mcs.net>
• Reply-To:
  darkowl@mcs.net
• cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960428010821.0067c528@pop.kaiwan.com>

On Sat, 27 Apr 1996 slayer@kaiwan.com wrote:

> that sounds like a good idea, but say I have a $bf_* verb with a lot of
> aliases and want it to parse the arguments and then call the verb with
> call_function()... which will call the $bf_* verb and loop again....
> 
I had thought of that, but I assumed this would be taken care of with
DEFAULT_MAX_STACK_DEPTH the same way regular verb calls are.  If not, most
loops like this will either have to suspend or tick out anyway, right?  So I
don't see this as being much of a problem...

> just fix $bf_recycle then... you could just get rid of #0:do_login_command
> and be just as screwed.
> 
Yeah, I guess that'd work just as well.  My reason for suggesting this was
because, the way I think of it, there are two sections that make up the MOO:
the server and the database.  #0 acts like a bridge between the two sections
and, if it was recycled, the server and database wouldn't be able to
communicate as well (if at all).  I still can't think of any reason that
you'd want to recycle it, aside from recycling and ressurecting it to clear
the verbs and properties which could be done just as well without
recycling it.
                                                         --Dark_Owl

• Re: call_function() and $bf_FOO()
• From: slayer@kaiwan.com

• Prev: Re: call_function() and $bf_FOO()
• Next: Re: call_function() and $bf_FOO()
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows