[DGD] Design question about inheritance code

[Steve Wooster]

At 08:38 PM 3/26/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>What about for object's compiled from a string it wouldn't have a source
>file, and you'd remove it because it doesn't have a source file...?

I figure only low-level code could compile from strings, so I wouldn't have 
to worry about this.

>2 seems a lil over the top, and perhaps difficult to track properly.
>I'm not sure if this suggestion is possible but in the event of a full
>recompile that other admin's are unaware of - ya'd think it might be
>mentioned ;) Couldn't the recompile code assign an object temp to a lib's
>object, and if the compile fails, use 'temp' ?

Yeah, it might be a little over the top, but I don't imagine it would be at 
all difficult to track. I mostly worry that it might drastically increase 
the time it takes to do a state-dump, by drastically increasing the size of 
the statefile that needs to be copied.

As for your idea... I'm still getting familiar with DGD's style of 
compiling, so I might be wrong, but I think that to update an inherited 
file, you must destruct it, which would set 'temp' to nil. Am I 
misunderstanding your suggestion?

Thanks for your quick reply!

-Steve Wooster

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