On Fri, 2 Jan 1998, Edward Glamkowski wrote:
> Yeah, but then is it still a ITEM_POTION? Or a ITEM_TRASH with
> a spec_proc associated with it?
With the special that I sent to the list (which still hasn't gone through
for some reason), you can make it ITEM_LIGHT for all the special cares. I
would make it an ITEM_POTION just to be congruous with the rest of things.
> To be an ITEM_POTION and use a spec_proc, you would have to create a
> dummy spell anyway (unless you do not have any way to cast 'identify'
> on items (including scrolls)...), so why not create the actual spell
> in the process? Probably easier than a spec_proc.
I'd use a spec_proc for this. That way I don't have a spell out there
that makes people younger. Matter of fact, I'm going to be working on
some code that will make you die (and be deleted) when you get too old.
Getting a few years younger would be a BIG bennie in this case.
> To use a spec_proc on ITEM_TRASH, you would have to use a verb other
> than quaff, which isn't very satisfactory.
Wrong there. Using the CMD_IS() macro, I can make it so that someone will be
forced to quaff a fountain or even a board if I felt like coding the spec
proc in such a manner. Hell, you can even make someone quaff another
player and purge the player from the game!!! That's the wonderful thing
about spec_procs. They are limited by two things: Your imagination, and
your ability to code.
John Evans <evansj@hi-line.net> -- http://www.hi-line.net/~evansj/
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
--Arthur C. Clarke
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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 : 12/15/00 PST