Re: MOO into C

• Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 15:32:03 PDT
• From:
  ThwartedEfforts <abakun@scinc.com>
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>Ah, so some of the horrible obfuscations in LambdaCore are *your* fault. :)

Thankfully, no.  
LambdaCore was obfuscated long before I came on the MOO scene. :) :) :)

>>;;x={1}; x[$+1..$] = {2}; return x;
>>
>he probably knew that, still think the other way would be simpler, and
>easier to implement than some of the current ideas being tossed around...

Of course.  What was I thinking?  We should implement everything that is the
easiest to implement as soon as possible, and put aside the fact that it may
not even be close to The Right Thing (tm).  What kind of server will we end
up with if we implement everything is obviously easy to implement and
nothing that is actually useful?

We already have three ways to append items to the end of lists:
   {@foo, bar}
   listappend(foo, bar)
   foo[$+1..$] = {bar}
Do we really need another one?

Andy.

• Re: MOO into C
• From: Richard Godard <janus@cam.org>
• Re: MOO into C
• From: Gustavo Glusman <bmgustav@bioinformatics.weizmann.ac.il>

• Prev: Re: MOO into C
• Next: Re: MOO into C
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows