Re: Non-overrideable verbs

• Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 01:26:46 PDT
• From:
  Andrew Ayre <A.J.Ayre@e-eng.hull.ac.uk>
• Reply-To:
  A.J.Ayre@e-eng.hull.ac.uk
• cc: RICHARD JACOB CONNAMACHER <phantom@sfsu.edu>, moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960730090528.5049C-100000@humus2.ucc.hull.ac.uk>

On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Andrew Ayre wrote:

> 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.

Errr...I made a bit of a mess of that logic. It seemed correct at the 
time...ahem... :)

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>

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