MOO-cows Mailing List Archive


Re: [PROG] changing the value of player

>One brief stylistic note: I always use $owner to refer to the
>ArchWizard.  Takes up zero database space.

Good call. thanks.

>[verb code deleted which first sets player and then tries to
>> The code is *not* supposed to work.
>With all due respect, this seems like an awfully large bug.  The
>set_task_perms() code shouldn't care one whit about 'player' unless it
>needs to raise an error, IMO.
>What was behind this implementation?
 -- Seth

set_task_perms() isn't caring about the value of player.  It seems that when
 a call to a verb is made, the permissions of the calling verb are checked to
 see if wizardly, and if not, revert the value of player to what it was
 originally for the caller verb so it is not changed in the callee.
But I also have to ask the question: What was behind this implementation?

>You have to do this in two steps; one
>wizardly verb changes `player' and then calls another (or the same!) wizardly
>verb to do the set_task_perms() and call the intended target.  We have a couple
>of places in Jupiter where we do this and in both cases we managed to have the
>same verb do double duty.  Think of it as a challenge... :-)
 -- Pavel

Okay, so the code is *not* susposed to work, but why?  Just easier to implement
 or actually some design issue?  IMO, having too make an extra call to get this
 to work seems like an awful workaround.
  ______                              __
    /   /  Andy Bakun     _/_      / /  `  /)  /)       _/_
 --/   /_  , , , __.  __  /  _  __/ /--   //  //  __,_  /  _
(_/   / /_(_(_/_(_/|_/ (_<__</_(_/ (___, //__//__(_) (_<__/_)_
  How much head could a bonehead bone   />  />
    if a bonehead could bone head?     //  //    </  </  


Home | Subject Index | Thread Index