Re: Suggestion, re: Minimal.db

• Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 17:46:38 PST
• From:
  rgodard@divsun.unige.ch (Richard Godard)
• Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 20:20 11/29/95, Lionel Clark wrote:
>        The Autoport is a great mechanism.  I think if the
>stablest forms can be compared and a best one chosen, that winner
>should be placed in the new Minimal.  Whatever qualifies for
>'best' is anyone's guess, however I like having it on one object
>as suggested.

<flame>

Hmmms. Do we have the same definition of minimal and great mechanism ?
A 700 lines verb that cause commands like @grep to run out of ticks is
neither minimal nor great.
It just perfom a job. If the users of that verb were less lazy they would
have rewritten it... or is everyone disgusted by digging through 700 lines
of code ? (No offense Def.)

>        This may necessitate a standard for Moos - like #0, some
> place where autoport can find pointers to 'known' objects -
>perhaps Everyman has changed, or something like that.  That way
>Autoport can correct code that is made Autoportable via keywords

Ever heard about $sysobj and $no_one? no? maybe you should not port stuff...

Do you port obj with your wizard character ? if yes, please leave me the
address of your MOO... I will drop by...

</flame>

I love Pavel's 0 object minimal db, that's minimal. :)

Janus (very lazy - why should I use @autoport when emacs does the job more
quickly and without wiz perms ?)

• Re: Suggestion, re: Minimal.db
• From: Lionel Clark <bishop@abbey.cuug.ab.ca>

• Prev: Suggestion, re: Minimal.db
• Next: Re: Suggestion, re: Minimal.db
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows