MOO-cows Mailing List Archive


Re: call_function() and bf_FOO()

At 1:40  -0400 4/28/96, Kipp the Kidd wrote:
>At 09:59 PM 4/27/96 PDT, wrote:
>>>So?   If this happens, it obviously means something was programmed
>>>incorrectly and should raise an E_MAXREC.  What else could it do?
>I can't believe nobody here pointed this out...  From the changelog, IF THE
>VERB CONTAINING THE BUILTIN IS NOT ON #0, then $bf_FOO is called...  Thus,
>if it IS on #0, then $bf_FOO ISN'T called...  there's nothing recursive
>about this.

Heh, even better: the :bf_FOO verb can be defined on an ancestors of #0 :-)
Of course you still have to call $bf_FOO(...) to get the desired effect.

Note that this avoid to bloat #0 with zillion of wrappers (just define them
on some $bf object and then chaprent #0 to $bf, et voila.)

Just my $0.02


"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
    -- Bill Gates, 1981


Home | Subject Index | Thread Index