[pbijdens@students.cs.ruu.nl: Re: bf wrappers and error handling]

• Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 11:05:08 -0600
• From:
  "Robert J. Brown" <rj@eli.wariat.org>

------- Start of forwarded message -------
Return-Path: nop@ccs.neu.edu
From: Pieter-Bas IJdens <pbijdens@students.cs.ruu.nl>
Subject: Re: bf wrappers and error handling
To: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 23:33:28 PST
Cc: janus@cam.org
In-Reply-To: <v03101700af48cc6256c0@[10.0.2.15]> from "Richard Godard" at Mar 9, 97 12:25:30 pm
X-WWW: http://www.students.cs.ruu.nl/~pbijdens
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: MOO-Cows-Errors@parc.xerox.com
Precedence: bulk
Resent-From: clue-cows <nop@nop.com>
Errors-To: clue-cows <nop@nop.com>

>No need for a new builtin-function, verbs should all be +d and use the
>error handling constructs. There are not that many places where the
>notify() built-in function is used. Changed those place to catch errors.

Yesterday, when making a wrapper for set_verb_code(), I ran into exactly the
same problem. I think it's a bad idea that you have to program the debugging
in builtin-wrappers yourself. Actually I think those wrappers should be 
transparent and they should automaticaly be ran with the callers debug flag,
just like the builtins themselves do. IMHO the MOO server just should
ignore the bf_ d flag and do this automaticaly.

Can anyone tell me why I'm wrong here, or will this indeed be a feature of the
next server version/patch (perhaps with a flag on $server_options for those
people who like long, long lists of excessive code...)?

  Pieter-Bas
------- End of forwarded message -------

• Prev: [pbijdens@students.cs.ruu.nl: Re: bf wrappers and error handling]
• Next: [pbijdens@students.cs.ruu.nl: Re: bf wrappers and error handling]
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows