Re: #0:handle_uncaught_error()

• Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 16:35:44 PST
• From:
  slayer@kaiwan.com
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>slayer@kaiwan.com writes:
>> would it be better to have :handle_uncaught_error() called on the other
>> connection object if the object being connected to is not #0?
>
>What object being connected to?  We're talking about arbitrary MOO tasks here.
>
Well, I had a web server being connected to an object and I wanted to nicely
format the traceback messages for the web so the person can see the
traceback if they are testing their objects, was easy enough to check that
in #0, but I was wondering why it wasn't called on the object like some of
the other system-related verbs.

no sig, just me.

• Re: #0:handle_uncaught_error()
• From: Pavel Curtis <pavel@parc.xerox.com>

• Prev: Re: #0:handle_uncaught_error()
• Next: Re: #0:handle_uncaught_error()
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows