MUD-Dev
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
[MUD-Dev] Re: atomic functions
On 3 May 98 at 9:34, Chris Gray wrote:
>
[snip]
> Hmm. I guess one could argue that anything like this is really just syntactic
> sugar, since you could rewrite it as:
>
> phase2event() {
> phase2();
> }
>
> event() {
> phase1();
> schedule event phase2event;
> }
>
> Would this even be worth considering?
>
You have hit the very essence of what I am doing with your second
example. The first example would be an extension for me. I hadn't
thought of it until just now, when you bonked me over the head with
it. :)
I think I will address the downside in my next reply.
--
--/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Internet:jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com /*\--
--/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
--/*\ "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato /*\--
--
MUD-Dev: Advancing an unrealised future.
- Thread context:
- [MUD-Dev] Re: atomic functions, (continued)
- [MUD-Dev] Re: atomic functions,
Felix A. Croes felix#xs1,simplex.nl, Sat 02 May 1998, 23:26 GMT
- [MUD-Dev] Re: atomic functions,
Felix A. Croes felix#xs1,simplex.nl, Sat 02 May 1998, 23:26 GMT
- [MUD-Dev] Re: atomic functions,
Chris Gray cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA, Sun 03 May 1998, 17:16 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]