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

[Felix A. Croes]

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

> >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.
>
> Then we have a difference of opinion.

Indeed we do.


> >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.
>
> This would of course require the inclusion of 'public' (like other drivers 
> seem to possess, but dgd doesn't...).

They have 'public' as a keyword which can be used in the declaration
of a function which is already public by default.  But don't let me
stop you from using other drivers.


> >By masking call_other(), you are making things needlessly complex.
>
> How come?

It is hard to be more specific since I have only a vague notion of
what you are trying to accomplish.  I have noticed a tendency among
people who have just discovered that call_other() can be masked, to
consider it the solution to everything.  So, broadly stated, I hope
that you will reconsider other ideas, should you come to the
conclusion that redefining call_other() does not suffice.


> >Personally, I like the validate(); idea.
>
> Could you explain what unexpected effects I have missed? I'm glad you liked 
> the idea. Is it useful enough to be included in the source?

You have misunderstood me.  By using 'validate' as a function call,
I was referring to the idea for which you said the function name
doesn't matter, and to which you referred thereafter using various
function names: simple security checks at the start of the function
called.

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