Re: Scope resolution operator

• Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 01:22:34 PST
• From:
  mark@ukhayq.cv.com (Mark R. Bowyer)
• Cc: jft@psychology.nottingham.ac.uk
• Content-Md5: CQ7Xi8VHwpdEq+HJKdFbSQ==
• Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hi,

Chuck Admas wrote:
> Is there any chance we could get a scope resolution operator or
> function for MOO?  With that, we could properly implement many things
> that have to use $utils now, i.e.
> 
> $object_utils:isa(obj, thing) ---> obj:$root_class::isa(thing)
> 
> $perm_utils:controls(obj, who) ---> obj:$root_class::trusts(who)
> 
> 
> A new pass() function that lets you specify whichj parent to pass() to
> could be incredibly useful.  Let's say you don't trust your PC owner
> not to mess with your :confunc (and you don't want to change player
> classes just yet).
> 
> @program me:confunc
> return pass_to($player, @args);
> .
> 
> Skipping all intermediate parents, keeping the value of 'this' intact,
> and bypassing any evil stunts that may lie inbetween.

I'm sure anyone who has written an HTML generating verb on an object way up in a 
hierachy on a Webbed MOO would find this addition a god-sent.  You always want 
the headers and footers added by #1, but sometimes the creaters of the rest have 
had a taste bypass, or simply different ideas as to layout, and having to 
massively patch the strings returned from a pass() to them is not fun.  It would 
also simplify porting webbed objects code without having to correctly port all 
the parents' code too.  PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE yes!

TC/Moredhel.

• Re: Scope resolution operator
• From: Pavel Curtis <pavel@parc.xerox.com>

• Prev: Scope resolution operator
• Next: Re: Scope resolution operator
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows