George writes:
>On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Jeremy Elson wrote:
>
>>If I'm on a boat, and I drop something, I would expect it to drop in
>>the boat -- not in the water. Unfortunately this is beyond the
>>capabilities of Circle because objects can't go into other objects --
>
>Make boats a container?
Ack - dumb me. I got so caught up in thinking about a generic
"object-oriented" system (e.g. being able to "put box on table", etc.)
that it didn't occur to me that a plain old container would probably
do the trick.
Making boats a container might work, but it would probably be very
messy -- it would probably require tons of "special-case" code
everywhere to deal with the fact that an object sitting in a boat has
some properties of a container and some properties of something
sitting on the ground. i.e., special code would be required for "get
anvil" (if it was on the boat with you), and "look" (to print what is
sitting in the boat with you), etc.
>Is not the realism of don't drop things while over the water better than
>things such as anvils floating around?
In my opinion, no. There are already many examples of concessions we
make to realism for the purpose of making the game more playable
(e.g. "gossip"); I wouldn't want to deal with the first 10 players to
lose their Amazing Sword of Destruction after dropping it while on a
boat.
The container idea is nice, but I don't think it can really be
implemented elegantly unless and until C++-Circle comes out :-) (where
instead of a "type field" on objects, they are all derived types of a
common superclass) -- then all the special cases would be very neatly
taken care of by way of virtual functions.
Jer
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST