MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
Re: call_function() and $bf_FOO()
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 18:50:57 PDT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 08:45 PM 4/27/96 -0500, Don Schwarz wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Apr 1996 firstname.lastname@example.org 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...
but then the function doesn't get called at all. Say I had a #0:"bf_fileread
bf_fileextract bf_filegrep bf_a_whole_bunch_of_other_screwy_FUP_verbs" and
Yeah, I know this doesn't do permissions checks, but you get the idea,
anyway the builtin will never get called since it'll keep calling itself
over and over again.
>> 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
well, you could hack the server to change it to another object besides #0,
this isn't recommended, of course.
This is not a signature.
Subject Index |