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?

-- 
Lars Duening; lars@bearnip.com