MOO-cows Mailing List Archive


Re: Non-overrideable verbs

On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Andrew Ayre wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, RICHARD JACOB CONNAMACHER wrote:
> > 1) A database transition would, in fact, be neccessary, because verbs 
> > are, in LambdaCORE< defined "rw" by default, so new verbs would be 
> > defined as non-overridable by default, which is IMHO a bad thing.  I 
> > would use 'p' (protected) or 'n' (non-overidable) as the perm for a 
> > non-overridable verb, and it has to be on for the verb to be overridable.
> Why not have o for overridable and !o for non-overridable, then the verbs 
> would be overidable by default.

Errr...I made a bit of a mess of that logic. It seemed correct at the 
time...ahem... :)

                                                       (. .)
The closer you look the closer you get.
telnet 7777


Home | Subject Index | Thread Index