On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Daniel Koepke wrote: > On Mon, 8 Mar 1993, Judson Powers wrote: > > ->There's a lot more potential, in that if you convert to classes, you can > ->use accessor functions, such as name() to get mName value. This lets a > ->class apply modifiers without too much code. For example, if "Xane" is > ->polymorphed into "a dragon", mName could store "Xane" like it normally > ->would, mPolyData.mName would store "a dragon" and name() would return "a > ->dragon" instead of "Xane" because Xane is polymorphed... get it? Lots of > ->potential... unfortunately, it requires a lot of rewriting. This is an example that appeals to me greatly... I coded polymorph about 2 years or so ago, and since it's been quite the bane of my future coding, because of the implemention, I have to take poly into account when I code ANYTHING "just in case"... wow, that really starts the brain a churning with areas where it would help... > More importantly, C++ has disadvantages as well. Anyone who knows What is there in C that can't be used in C++? Is there any real problems to keeping stuff as c structs that would make crappy classes? So far as I can tell, almost everything C should work fine compiled in C++. The more I think about this, the more I want to convert the MUD. If it's worth it, I certainly don't mind the work involved, and code changes are pretty small in happening right now, since we're working on spicing up the world a little more, there's not much code involved in what we're doing. Share And Enjoy! Brazil - Implementor of AddictMUD addict.dmswebworks.com 4000 +------------------------------------------------------------+ | 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