Re: wish lists

• Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 13:35:32 PDT
• From:
  Richard Godard <janus@cam.org>
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
• In-Reply-To: <199607231819.LAA08626@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>
• References: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960723065139.176B-100000@ralin.mistral.co.uk> (bartmoss@mistral.co.uk)

At 10:19 -0800 7/23/96, Judy Anderson wrote:
>   Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 23:56:19 PDT
>   From: bartmoss@mistral.co.uk
>
>   The MOO language should have the syntax of:
>	   a += 1;
>
>Ew!  Please, no.  Please do not rush to turn MOO into C.
>
>Keep it simple.  MOO is a great first language.  Let's not complexify
>it for little gain.
>
>      Judy Anderson yclept yduJ          'yduJ' rhymes with 'fudge'
> yduJ@cs.stanford.edu (personal mail)   yduJ@harlequin.com (work-related)
>	Join the League for Programming Freedom, lpf@uunet.uu.net

I would like to second yudJ concern here.

I'm not in a hurry to see perl-like stuff neither.

If there are to be synyax changed, I would rather like see obj.foo = bar;
to implicitely call set_property_value(obj, "foo", bar), so a wrappers
assignement on property assignement. (and of course bar = obj.foo; would do
an implicit call to property_value(obj, "foo")...
Same could be true for verbs call... obj:(verb)(@args) same as
call_verb(obj, verb, args)... Also the possibilities to make a wrapper for
bf likes pass() would be nice (if such wrapper was possible, implementing
passable/unpassable verbs would be trivial, while right now it's not easy
to do in-db.)

Janus

• wish lists
• From: bartmoss@mistral.co.uk
• Re: wish lists
• From: Judy Anderson <yduj@cs.stanford.edu>

• Prev: Re: wish lists
• Next: Re: wish lists
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows