Re: [PROG] E_PROPNF v. E_VERBNF

• Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 03:50:22 PDT
• From:
  Ian Macintosh <ian@iman.internet.co.nz>
• Content-Length: 1510
• Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-To: <9510280341.AA19944@saul6.u.washington.edu>

On Fri, 27 Oct 1995, Michael Brundage wrote:

> Suppose there an object #A defines a property .example and a verb :example(),
> and suppose #B is a child of #A.  Then although #B inherits both of these from
> #A,
> 
> ;property_info(#B, "example")
> => okay
> 
> ;verb_info(#B, "example")
> => E_VERBNF  (assuming that #B doesn't itself define a verb :example() )
> 
> Shouldn't both of these return errors, or else both be okay?  I know that
> inheritance has no effect on the rwxd flags of a verb, while an inherited
> property can have different rwc values than its parent's property, but still,
> it seems a little inconsistent....

Nope.

Think about it.  You CAN change the property_info on an inherited
property, hence, querying that from an object is valid.  After all, it
REALLY does have property_info field. 

But, on the other hand, the verb_info data does NOT exist on an inherited
verb, therefor, trying to examine that on the wrong object doesn't make
any sense, and is, in my opinion, correctly diagnosed as an error. 

Regards,

Ian.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ian Macintosh         | P.O. Box 24-036      | Anything really worth    |
| General Manager       | Royal Oak            | doing, is worth doing    |
| Sytek New Zealand Ltd | Auckland 1           | badly.     - Duncan Shaw |
| Tel : +64 9 625-6159  | Fax : +64 9 625-5374 | Mobile : +64 25 836-230  |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

• [PROG] E_PROPNF v. E_VERBNF
• From: Michael Brundage <anomaly@u.washington.edu>

• Prev: [PROG] E_PROPNF v. E_VERBNF
• Next: Re: [PROG] E_PROPNF v. E_VERBNF
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows