Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!europa.netcrusader.net!204.71.34.3!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.nyc.globix.net!uunet!ash.uu.net!world!buzzard
From: buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: [Inform] Replaced routines and System_file
Message-ID: <GDsH2v.925@world.std.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:52:07 GMT
References: <MPG.1574c9fd4d7033d5989850@news.cis.dfn.de> <20010522223125.08289.00000933@ng-mo1.aol.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 17
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:87439

OKB -- not okblacke <brenbarn@aol.comRemove> wrote:
>     In this case, yes.  However, it's not unthinkable that you'd want to
>create a general-purpose library from which people might want to Replace
>routines, and in such a case, System_file leaves you out in the cold.  Opting
>in (or out) with a constant definition becomes a pain if you have many
>potentially Replace-able routines -- and in any case, seems like a kludge whose
>functionality should be provided by the language.

You seem to be saying that that it's not possible to make a library
mod which both replaces a library function and is itself replaceable.
Is that what you're saying? Because it's not true, I know I implemented
something like that once and was surprised to find it was replaceable;
it was inconsistent with the semantics for "system_file" in the DM3,
although I can't find any details about those semantics in DM4.  If
that *is* what you're saying I can go look it up to see what I did.

SeanB
