Re: call_function() and bf_FOO()

• Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 06:39:15 PDT
• From:
  Richard Godard <rgodard@divsun.unige.ch>
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
• In-Reply-To: <1.5.4b12.32.19960428053301.0068fea8@mailbox.syr.edu>

At 1:40  -0400 4/28/96, Kipp the Kidd wrote:
>At 09:59 PM 4/27/96 PDT, slayer@kaiwan.com 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

Richard

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

• Re: call_function() and $bf_FOO()
• From: Kipp the Kidd <mcmudge@mailbox.syr.edu>

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