View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000745 | LDMud 3.5 | Efuns | public | 2010-04-20 13:39 | 2010-11-22 22:46 |
| Reporter | Sorcerer | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | closed | Resolution | won't fix | ||
| Summary | 0000745: private lfuns and function_exists | ||||
| Description | If called from the defining object function_exists might be able to find lfuns that are declared private. If it's just a few lines of code it would be a nice-to-have but it's not all that important. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
|
As far as I remember, that is actually not possible, because private functions are not stored in the function table. Am I wrong? |
|
|
They are not stored in the function names lookup table (which is used by function_exists()). However they are stored in the function table (which is read by functionlist()), so a mudlib could take that list and search the function name in there (the driver would have to do the same thing for private functions). I'd rather not implement that in function_exists(). |
|
|
Thank you. :-) I agree with Gnomi. Iterating over the function table as fallback if we don't find something in the function lookup table seems not too good. The only way out would be a new argument for searching private functions. But since this is not too often done and the the procedure for the mudlib the same as for the driver, we can leave this to the mud (simul_efun or whatever). |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-04-20 13:39 | Sorcerer | New Issue | |
| 2010-11-19 22:47 | zesstra | Note Added: 0001925 | |
| 2010-11-19 22:47 | zesstra | Status | new => feedback |
| 2010-11-20 00:03 | Gnomi | Note Added: 0001926 | |
| 2010-11-22 22:46 | zesstra | Note Added: 0001933 | |
| 2010-11-22 22:46 | zesstra | Status | feedback => closed |
| 2010-11-22 22:46 | zesstra | Resolution | open => won't fix |
