Re: Feature request

• Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 10:21:41 PST
• From:
  rgodard@divsun.unige.ch (Richard Godard)
• Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 17:33 1/12/96, Zachary DeAquila wrote:
>While everyone is doling out feature requests for poor belabored Pavel, I
>figured I'd
>add a fairly non-esoteric request to the list:  an 'o' flag for verbs, by
>default on,
>that stands for 'overrideable'.  !o verbs cannot be overriden by children
>of the
>object - I think it may be easiest to implement as an E_PERM if someone
>(anyone!? wizonly?
>hrm.) tries to define an overriding verb on a child, or similarly if they
>try and chparent()
>an object with such a verb defined.
>
>I think this would increase security a *lot*.  Comments?
>
>  --Zachary

I implemented that in-db... it was more a programming exercise than
something useful (because of the overhead involved when you chparent an
object or rename a verb)

If there is to be a 'o' flag in the server, how do you suggest to implement
them ? What happens when you change the verb perms from +o to -o and that
there are kids that define verbs with the same name ? What about
chparenting objects (given that a verb that is +o in a hirerachy can be -o
in another) ?

I personnally took an approach a la 'c' flag for properties... (maybe not
the best, but the 'easiest' to implement).

Speaking f flags... what about the 'p' one for having passable/non-passable
verbs ? (just curious... does anyone implemented it in-db ? :-) ;-)

Janus

---
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
    -- Bill Gates, 1981

• Prev: Re: Feature Request
• Next: Re: Feature Request
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows