Re: Non-overrideable verbs

• Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 01:07:15 PDT
• From:
  Andrew Ayre <A.J.Ayre@e-eng.hull.ac.uk>
• Reply-To:
  A.J.Ayre@e-eng.hull.ac.uk
• cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960729213951.14709A-100000@pluto>

On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, RICHARD JACOB CONNAMACHER wrote:

> 1) A database transition would, in fact, be neccessary, because verbs 
> are, in LambdaCORE< defined "rw" by default, so new verbs would be 
> defined as non-overridable by default, which is IMHO a bad thing.  I 
> would use 'p' (protected) or 'n' (non-overidable) as the perm for a 
> non-overridable verb, and it has to be on for the verb to be overridable.

Why not have o for overridable and !o for non-overridable, then the verbs 
would be overidable by default.

Andy.
                                                        \|/
                                                       (. .)
----------------------------------------------------o00-(_)-00o-----
The closer you look the closer you get.
telnet sun1.newport.ac.uk 7777
http://whirligig.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~aij295/groover
--------------------------------------------------------------------

• Re: Non-overrideable verbs
• From: Andrew Ayre <A.J.Ayre@e-eng.hull.ac.uk>

• Re: Non-overrideable verbs
• From: RICHARD JACOB CONNAMACHER <phantom@sfsu.edu>

• Prev: Re: Non-overrideable verbs
• Next: Re: Non-overrideable verbs
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows