Re: call_function() and $bf_FOO()

• Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 22:36:28 PDT
• From:
  slayer@kaiwan.com
• Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 01:33 AM 4/28/96 -0400, Kipp the Kidd wrote:
>At 09:59 PM 4/27/96 PDT, slayer@kaiwan.com wrote:
>>>So?   If this happens, it obviously means something was programmed
>>>incorrectly and should raise an E_MAXREC.  What else could it do?
>
>I can't believe nobody here pointed this out...  From the changelog, IF THE
>VERB CONTAINING THE BUILTIN IS NOT ON #0, then $bf_FOO is called...  Thus,
>if it IS on #0, then $bf_FOO ISN'T called...  there's nothing recursive
>about this.
>
>- Kipp

I can't believe you didn't read the whole thread.. Dark_Owl was commenting
about why call_function from #0 doesn't make it a whole new call to
$bf_whatever... if that happens things will get recursive.

This is not a signature.

• Prev: Re: call_function() and $bf_FOO()
• Next: Re: call_function() and $bf_FOO()
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows