[MUD-Dev] Re: atomic functions

Jon A. Lambert jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com
Sun May 3 17:51:32 New Zealand Standard Time 1998


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 at 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.



More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list