MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
Re: call_function() and $bf_FOO()
On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Don Schwarz wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 1996 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > >I had thought of that, but I assumed this would be taken care of with
> > >DEFAULT_MAX_STACK_DEPTH the same way regular verb calls are.
> > but then the function doesn't get called at all. Say I had a #0:"bf_fileread
> > bf_fileextract bf_filegrep [...]" and had this:
> > [...]
> > return call_function(verb[4..$],@args);
> > endif
> > 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.
> So? If this happens, it obviously means something was programmed
> incorrectly and should raise an E_MAXREC. What else could it do?
I think that people are missing something. Of course, I could be wrong,
Take the ridiculous code
#0:bf_listappend tnt rxd
notify(#2, "in bf_listappend");
return call_function("listappend", @args);
This code *will not* recurse infinitely for the same reason that the same
code except with
won't. Because the calling verb is on #0, the real builtin is called
instead of the wrapper. And, yes, I tried it; the notify is in there to
convince myself that I was doing everything right.
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 |