George <greerga@CIRCLEMUD.ORG> writes:
> Ok, make the function an 'int' returning 'c'.
>
> c += verify_function(rnum, buf + c, MAX_STRING_LENGTH - c);
>
> With appropriate checks for 0 space left and such.
It still has a hackish look. A nice buffered system like Erwin
proposed would be nice. How well does buffer 1.8 work, and is there a
non-patch version available?
<rant> This reminds me. Perhaps it's time we as a community stopped making
patches available? Instead, some kind of file describing what to do?
Patches are a prime cause that we have so many boring semi-stock
muds. Yes they're convenient, but on most muds, they're not usable
as-is and require hand patching. Then we'd just end up with a bunch
of stock-only muds. I dunno, I guess I'm just reacting to the large
about of extremely basic questions that are posed here. </rant>
A matter of personal opinion only, I prefer doing the sprintf stuff
this way. Looks nicer, and it makes it easier to do non-sprintf stuff
at the end of the buffer. Fundamentally the same, just using an extra
pointer instead of an int:
char *p = buf;
p += sprintf(p, ...);
IMO nicer than
int i;
i += sprintf(buf + i, ...);
To each his own :)
--
James Turner turnerjh@xtn.net UIN: 1102038
http://www.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/~turnerjh/
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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