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, email@example.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
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
Subject Index |