Re: [SERVER] LambdaMOO 1.8.x feature wishlist

• Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:56:11 PST
• From:
  Erik Ostrom <eostrom@research.att.com>
• cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
• In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Nov 1996 02:50:56 PST." <Pine.SOL.3.91.961111022315.20588A-100000@laurel>

>      Limit string and list lengths to prevent malicious programmers
>      (or unfortunate accidents) from bringing down any MOO currently in 
>      existence.

As others have pointed out, this doesn't finish the job, as I can still
create an arbitrary number of properties.  If you could limit the sizes of
individual objects _and_ of individual variables, as well as the number
of objects and forked tasks owned by a user, you'd be closer.  (But the
idea of the addition operator raising E_QUOTA still makes me squirm.)

>    - differentiate between constant and mutable strings (String and 
>      StringBuffer in Java)

So, this is the request for the _addition_ of a mutable string data
type, right?  (Since, in the current server, all strings are immutable.)
That can complicate programming a great deal.  For example, if the .name
property in MOO were a mutable string, and you accidentally passed me
a reference to it (e.g., if your :name verb did `return this.name'),
I'd be able to change your name.  Unless we also had string ownership.

Mutable strings are harder to work with; that doesn't make them not
worth investigating, I just want to make sure what you're requesting.

> (3) Customizable exceptions/error handling.

What would you use this for?  Would you use object numbers as your
exceptions?  That'd be sort of neat.

--Erik

• Re: [SERVER] LambdaMOO 1.8.x feature wishlist
• From: Michael Brundage <brundage@laurel.ipac.caltech.edu>

• [SERVER] LambdaMOO 1.8.x feature wishlist
• From: Michael Brundage <brundage@laurel.ipac.caltech.edu>

• Prev: Re: [SERVER] LambdaMOO 1.8.x feature wishlist
• Next: Re: [SERVER] LambdaMOO 1.8.x feature wishlist
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows