MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
Re: wish lists
On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 email@example.com wrote:
> Two things I'd like to see that would make coding much simpler and ehance the
> OO features of the language are:
> a) allowing verbs to be called with the . operator instead of : operator,
> i.e. object.verb(args)
Hmm... I don't really think this will simplify the MOO language. Two
different operators ( : and . ) which do the same and at the same time one
operator ( . ) which does two different things is not a good idea imho.
> b) a mechanism for encapsulating property references.
> What I mean by (b) is probably easier to explain by example. In IdealMOO(tm),
> there is the following piece of code:
> d.number = 5;
> Now, d happens to be a large display panel in the square. When the property
> changes, the number on the front does too. This is done by encapsulating the
> number property. When the above expression is executed by the server, instead
> of merely setting the property it calls d:_set_number(5) instead.
> object.number = arg;
> object.description = tostr("A display panel with a ",
> object.number, " on the front.");
> Likewise, reading d.number would instead return the result of d:_get_number(),
> which wouldn't be defined in this case.
I don't think this will simplify the MOO language either. It might be a nice
tool for experienced MOO programmers though, but It is not trivial to
implement. The MOO server must not let _set_number() call itself again,
when it tries to set the property.
The above example is of course easy to implement in the current language, by
making a -c prop, and an verb to change it. At this moment I think it's best
to keep the parser as simple as possible, to keep the language easy to
learn, debug and comprehend.
Subject Index |