On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, Alexander van Koppen wrote:
> Thought about this, too (and even made a simple item to 'portal' people
> to another room), I made a mirror (one you could step through if you
> said (one of) the correct phrase(s)), tagged a special to it (a simple
> one that just looked for 'enter' and 'say'), and used <bla>.value[4]
> to store the destination room. (code below)
[CODE SNIPPED]
Well, all that stuff about special procedures is fine, but I guess my
message didn't get the right angle on my viewpoint then. What I was
trying to say is, that making special procedures seems unflexible, or in
case when you want to preserve the flexibility VERY
difficult/timeconsuming/whatever to add :)
An example would be if you loaded 2 portals and had a 'normal' object
which people would enter using the enter code in the same room, what your
spec_proc would do, would be to FORCE the person trying to enter
something to enter the portal that was created last, at least the way I
understood the special procedure you've built.
So, to repeat my point, if you modify the do_enter procedure in the
mudcode, you'll end up with a solution where people can shoose any portal
and any other stuff in the room in terms of entering what they want!
Well, hope I made myself clear now.
On the other hand you might be able to talk about a little less cpu usage
as the spec_proc code only functions where you have portals, if you make
a general addition to the do_enter procedure, you end up having a check
EVERY time a person uses the do_enter procedure. So, all in all it's a
matter of taste what one wants to do. I just wanted to make people
considering this idea think twice before they implement it, so the idea
allso fits their needs teh most.
Regards,
Con.
d.
--
Rasmus Rønlev DOEK'94 WWW: http://www.econ.cbs.dk/people/raro94ab
Student instructor MUD: exiled.mud.circlemud.org 5000
199.199.16.100 5000
Student, B.Sc in Computer Science and Business Administration.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST