Re: #-1 owned a verb!

• Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 10:02:20 PST
• From:
  Pavel Curtis <pavel@parc.xerox.com>
• cc: MOO-Cows.PARC@xerox.com
• In-Reply-to: "\"Seth I. Rich\"'s message of \"Fri, 22 Mar 1996 08:16:03 PST\" <199603221616.LAA22062@rabbit.INS.CWRU.Edu>"

Seth I. Rich writes:
> I have no clue how it happened, but we ended up with a verb owned by #-1.

I've tracked this down; it's renumber()'s fault.

When renumber(OLD) is called, it first figures out what new, lower object
number it's going to use; call it NEW.  It then runs through the entire
database changing everything currently owned by OLD to be owned by NEW instead.
*Also*, it changes everything currently owned by NEW to be owned by #-1.  I
think my reasoning here had to do with not wanting OLD to silently `inherit' a
bunch of stuff that used to be owned by the late lamented NEW (now invalid).

It's clear that this is not intuitive, or even consistent (since nothing else
can set an owner to #-1), but maybe the reasoning behind is worth saving in
*some* form.  Ideas?  It could, for example, switch the currently owned by NEW
things to be owned by the now-invalid OLD...

	Pavel

• Re: #-1 owned a verb!
• From: Thomas Wouters <zonny@dds.nl>

• #-1 owned a verb!
• From: "Seth I. Rich" <sir@po.cwru.edu>

• Prev: Re: #-1 owned a verb!
• Next: Re: #-1 owned a verb!
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows