Re: wish lists

• Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 12:23:05 PDT
• From:
  Richard Godard <janus@cam.org>
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
• In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960724173524.006ac064@mailbox.syr.edu>

At 9:35 -0800 7/24/96, Kipp the Kidd wrote:
>Yeah, verbing properties is a great idea, but it's too hard to create a verb
>for each property, and then request that the programmers /use/ the verb
>instead of the property.  On paradigm, there is a $root_class:_* which
>simply returns the property, and can be overridden (and often is) on any
>child.  But still the problem remains, the Programmers/Wizards, including
>myself, *never* use obj:_prop().
>
>It could just be because everyone knows I have a program that automagically
>converts them :)
>
>- Kipp
>http://radioactivo.com.mx/~paradigm

Yeah, a basic hook in $bf_set_verb_code() and it works.

BTW this works for ANY kind of substutions some people would like to see:

Like foo.bar() syntax instead of foo:bar()...

$bf_set_verb_code() : foo.bar() -> foo:bar() -> compile
$bf_verb_code() : foo:bar() -> foo.bar() -> return code


We use this a 'lot' at E_MOO to add various functionalities (like local
reference which avoid us the use of hardcoded object numbers). Works just
great, no need of server modification for that.

I've seen various people mentioning it would be nice if this bit was 'n'
and if table syntax was ...

This lead me to a question for Joe: do you want concept wish lists? or do
you also want the implementation/interface/syntax details?

IMHO it would save a lot of bandwidth if we avoid the syntax holy wars and
let the maintainer propose an implementation/interface/syntax we can
discuss... of course this might lead to some holy wars too... but I hope
they will make then less clueless...

Just my $0.02

Janus

• Re: wish lists
• From: Kipp the Kidd <mcmudge@mailbox.syr.edu>

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