Re: bf wrappers

• Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 05:18:27 PDT
• From:
  Richard Godard <janus@cam.org>
• Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
• In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.94.960902195548.15711A-100000@pluto>

At 22h31 -0500 1996/09/02, Richard Connamacher wrote:
>read() and notify() must, in accordance with documentation and
>compatibility with existing verbs, raise E_PERM, E_INVARG, or E_NARGS if
>called certain ways.  This is impossible to do with a -d bf wrapper.

All verbs should be +d :)

>IMHO, raise() should override the -d status of a verb.  I see no reason
>why it shouldn't, and there must be some way to raise an error from a -d
>verb, such as the case of my bf_notify verb.

You can always write a wrapper for raise() that would just be a +d verb
that raise(@args). That way you could raise errors from -d verbs.

>I thought I read somewhere about how when a bf handler explicitly raises
>an error, the traceback makes it appear as if the bf function itself
>raised the error..  guess not.

I don't remember this, but you can deal with that in
#0:handle_uncaught_error. At E_MOO and TecfaMOO there is a prog option that
allow to toggle that behavior on/off among other things...

Good luck with your bf wrappers.

-- Richard

• bf wrappers
• From: Richard Connamacher <phantom@sfsu.edu>

• Prev: Re: bf wrappers
• Next: Changing preposition specifiers
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows