Re: Wish-list (!object nums)

• Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 18:19:07 PDT
• From:
  "Patrick Harris (aka Bastian)" <bastian@net2.netacc.net>
• cc: MOO-Cows.parc@xerox.com
• Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-to: <199608250102.LAA14703@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>

> Well i guess if the whole core is done that way, there is no point in 
> making a change which would be backwardly compatible and (arguably) be 
> useful.

BZZT.  I'm sorry.  You are incorrect.  Certainly, if it were *that* easy,
yyou could do it.  But, hell, man!  What you want to do is to write
something totally different.  *EVERYTHING* about moo is related to object
numbers.  Literally.  The server, the code, the builtins, the programming
previously done, is BASED ON OBJNUMS.  What you propose cannot be done
with the scope of MOO, without starting over again and rewriting it.
Which would no longer be MOO!

> Like i said before, maybe its my inexperience, but i see object 
> numbers as equivalent to memory address in C. So not only is it a 
> porting problem but it also has no level of abstraction so you get no 
> flexibility.

Yep.  It is inexperience.  Objnum is the way the MOO functions.  Unlogged
in players are negatives, failed match and ambiguous match are #-2 and #-3
(or maybe the other way around, I forget), even $nothing is #-1.  It's
*all* based on objnums.  Use a different server if you can't accept that.

--
The one and only |>             bastian@mail.netacc.net
		 |>astian       http://net2.netacc.net/~bastian/

Thank you, drive through.

• Re: Wish-list (!object nums)
• From: BeLFrY <belfry@zeta.org.au>

• Re: Wish-list (!object nums)
• From: "Geoffrey King" <zzgking@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>

• Prev: Re: Wish-list (!object nums)
• Next: Re: Wish-list (!object nums)
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows