Re: [PROG] E_PROPNF v. E_VERBNF

• Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 08:02:46 PDT
• From:
  Joe Shaw <joeshaw@eskimo.com>
• Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Length: 989
• Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-To: <9510280341.AA19944@saul6.u.washington.edu> from "Michael Brundage" at Oct 27, 95 08:41:17 pm

> Suppose there an object #A defines a property .example and a verb :example(),
> and suppose #B is a child of #A.  Then although #B inherits both of these from
> #A,
> 
> ;property_info(#B, "example")
> => okay
> 
> ;verb_info(#B, "example")
> => E_VERBNF  (assuming that #B doesn't itself define a verb :example() )
> 
> Shouldn't both of these return errors, or else both be okay?  I know that
> inheritance has no effect on the rwxd flags of a verb, while an inherited
> property can have different rwc values than its parent's property, but still,
> it seems a little inconsistent....

The properties are actually passed down to the children. However, the 
verbs are not... Its pointless and a waste of space. The verb is called 
on the ancestor which has that verb.

For example, if I'm a $wiz, the property .email_address is on my object, 
as it is with and object that is a descendant of $player. But, the verb 
@who is _not_ on me, it is just called from $player.

Get it?

Joe

• Re: [PROG] E_PROPNF v. E_VERBNF
• From: Michael Brundage <anomaly@u.washington.edu>

• [PROG] E_PROPNF v. E_VERBNF
• From: Michael Brundage <anomaly@u.washington.edu>

• Prev: Re: [PROG] E_PROPNF v. E_VERBNF
• Next: Re: [PROG] E_PROPNF v. E_VERBNF
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows