Re: Non-overrideable verbs

• Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 03:34:56 PDT
• From:
  Jefferson.M.Dubrule@dartmouth.edu (Jefferson M. Dubrule)
• Reply-To:
  manta@dartmouth.edu
• Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com

--- 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.
--- end of quoted material ---

Dealt with even more simply:  in the server, the flag VF_NOT_O is used to
indicate that the flag is NOT set. 

-manta 

• Prev: Re: Non-overrideable verbs
• Next: ongoing listen() probs.
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows