View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000218 | LDMud | Efuns | public | 2004-11-26 23:16 | 2004-11-26 23:16 |
| Reporter | Assigned To | ||||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | new | Resolution | open | ||
| Summary | 0000218: Modify efun command_stack() | ||||
| Description | Short: Extension to command_stack() Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:39:23 -0700 From: Lars Duening <lars@bearnip.com> Type: Feature State: New On 29 Feb 00, at 11:21, Casey Zacek wrote: > > Regarding the command_stack() additions I suggested, one of my Arches > came up with this: > > > oh and I realized that if command_stack() returned the object > calling command(), that'd almost certainly solve our problems > cuz we can test that against the command_giver element of the > corresponding stack item and if they match up, then the object > is forcing itself and its okay to let it through the only > problem is that i envisioned the offending object element to > return 0 if command() wasn't used that might not work because > what if the offending object got dested then it'd still be > "insecure" or whatever, but 0 would be in there you'd need to > come up with some other value for a "secure" command How about the object name instead of the object itself? | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| External Data (URL) | |||||
