View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000248 | LDMud | LPC Compiler/Preprocessor | public | 2004-11-26 23:58 | 2008-07-18 13:10 |
| Reporter | Assigned To | ||||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | new | Resolution | open | ||
| Summary | 0000248: Safe recompile of objects | ||||
| Description | hort: Safe recompile of objects From: Lars Duening <lars@bearnip.com> Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 01:26:13 -0600 Type: Feature State: New Acius wrote on Sunday, May 20 2001, 00:46:08: >I hope that my explanation was not too garbled, it's late. And While >we're talking about adding efun's, how about an update_object(string >path) efun that: >* Compiles the .c file at "path" >* If path has an error, report the error and *do nothing to the existing >object associated with that path*. >* If path does not have an error, destruct the existing blueprint object > for path and then load in the new one. You can have the efun take a parameter: recompile-and-load, or just recompile to check the syntax. Be careful with inherits, though. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| External Data (URL) | |||||
|
|
I'm am interested in such a feature, although I don't know yet, what has to be changed (load_object() probably, we don't want to duplicate all that code in it) for making something like this work. Alternatively, an efun implementing an LPC syntax check might be possible, although it is not the same and compiling a program just for testing it and compiling it again shortly after this can be quite a waste of time. |
|
|
You can simulate this in the mudlib, using rename_object() in the master destruct applies. At least you could with 3.2. Nonetheless, it would be useful to do this without such hacks; our mudlib only used it for simul_efun protection. |
