MOO-cows Mailing List Archive


Re: Wish-list (!object nums)

At 03:53 AM 8/24/96 PDT, you wrote:
>I am a novice, so the following may be said out of ignorance.
>The thing that struck me most are object numbers. I think that any 
>need to use them should be removed from the language. Rather it 
>should be possible to use names as object indentifiers. 
>The Goal:
>1. Reduce reliance on object numbers.
Object #'s are pretty reliable outside of code and in code .foo/$foo usually
works ok.
>The Proposal:
>1. When an object is created it can be tagged as 'global'
>2. Unique objects have their names in a global name space, which can 
>be referenced from anywhere.
>3. Local variables that clash with these unique names would override 
>The Rational:
>I think not using object numbers where possible is so obvious i wont 
>Making only *some* objects 'global' would not put every object into 
>this global name-space. Rather only generic classes and unique 
>objects would likely be added (maybe players ?).  
>A simple naming convention would also help manage the global namespace 
>Local vars would override the globals because otherwise 
>as new globals are created old code may not function properly 
>It could be implemented as a object flag bit (aka permission bit).
>a = create(p, o);
>would initially set to 0
>Changes to .name would become dependent on the value of .global
>Anyways, thats some thoughts.
>--Geoffrey King--Software Engineer--Ice T Multimedia--
Essentially isn't this the point of $foo? Global replacements for object
numbers? It'd be terribly ineffeceint to sort through all the objects on the
MOO looking for one named something or with it's "global" name set to something.
@(BayMOO, AnonyMOO, DU)

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index