MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: raise()

At 13:37 -0800 8/2/96, Don Schwarz wrote:
>I would prefer just adding an optional 4th argument to raise() that the
>server uses for the traceback stack instead of creating one from the
>callers stack and current location in the verb.  So in the above example,
>the reraise line would be replaced with:
>      raise(@error);
>Of course this would probably open up a few security holes so it might have
>to be wiz-only, I'm not sure.
>                                                   --Dark_Owl

Yes, I was thinking about that too (4th argument) but didn't proposed it
because of the security issue (people building flase traceback...) Not that
it would be such a security hole tho...

reraise (reraise()?) could be used by anyone.

I also wonder wich one is easier to implement:
a) raise() with 4 args
b) reraise() bf
c) reraise statement...

-- Richard

P.S. reraise is not a cool name... if someone can come with something better...
Follow-Ups: References:
Home | Subject Index | Thread Index