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

[Felix A. Croes]

"Robert Forshaw" <iouswuoibev at hotmail.com> wrote:

> >From: Erwin Harte <harte at is-here.com>
> >Perhaps you've noticed 'private' and 'static' functions in other code?
> >I believe these will allow you to do 99% of what you want, already.
>
> You would know that I have if you read the entire post, as I mention these 
> keywords. You would also know that 99% of what I want cannot be fulfilled by 
> 'private' and 'static'.

I read your postings, and I do not see you refer to static functions
anywhere.  Perhaps that bit was also mysteriously omitted?  After
reading them as they were posted, the assumption that you didn't know
about static functions is not unreasonable.

Regarding calling security, I think one mistake was made during the
inception of LPC: functions (and variables) should be private by
default.  Unfortunately it is now too late to change this.

By masking call_other(), you are making things needlessly complex.  I
suspect that you may still not quite get the effect you are looking
for.  Personally, I like the validate(); idea.

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