[DGD] Re: My idea for the DGD driver - validate

[Steve Foley]

> and see how it works out. Incidently, by using function_name() in the
> override function I could detect whether the validate function is there or
> not, and it wouldn't be necessary to declare the validate function in each
> object. I still think my idea would be more convenient, but its probably too
> much work to implent to justify the benefits... One thing though, will
> overriding call_other also apply to the -> operator?

Well, you could also leave the auto_object empty and use multiple auto objects
as well (via the path_include trick discussed elsewhere) potentially.  The
assumption there being that the two kinds of objects (those that need this kind
of security and those that don't) will likely be in different parts of your
directory structure.  You'd just have to be sure to declare it static and
nomask, and I think that would make it function similarly to a static function
declared in the AUTO.

As for ->, yes.  Overriding call_other has that effect.  -> is just a macro for
call_other.

_________________________________________________________________
List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd