Re: [circ] Universal object?

From: Daniel Koepke (dkoepke@CALIFORNIA.COM)
Date: 01/19/98


On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Chris Jacobson wrote:

->The 3 "basic types" are not as basic as they might seem... rather they
->are base classes to the various versions.  Rooms could not be treated
->like characters/objects in any way... you can't hold a room, put a room
->in a room, hit a room, damage a room (well, maybe somethng like that), or
->move a room.

Personally, I don't see why you houldn't be able to hold a room, or
put another room inside of a room, or damage a room, or move a room.
If you have races that are small--say faeries--and they built a little
hut, what is preventing a person from picking that hut up?  It's still
a room--as people can go in and out of it; but it's small enough to be
picked up and placed else-where.  An elevator is also a moving room;
or any kind of platform could be considered a moving room.  Now, are
these really best suited to be considered rooms?  Probably not.  They
would make better special case containers (for instance, the little
hut could be a Building container, which permits people, as well as
things, to enter it).

->to_room of ObjData... if I were to make a meta class that all 3 primary
->classes would inherit from, it would at most contain memory management
->and the "id" member, which is the only member in common.

Well, the next pointer, too, if you aren't using a template for linked
list (and if you aren't, you should be :).

-dak


     +------------------------------------------------------------+
     | 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