Edward J Glamkowski wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:42:16 Richard Glover wrote:
> >Having STATE_x is better for more than just MOUNTED. You should also look
> >at putting STATE_SLEEPING, STATE_STUNNED, etc for these. Since you can be
> >sitting and alseep, they should be 2 different things. You'll just need to
> >add in some macros and check throughout the code for checked against GET_POS
> >since they use <, >, or = and make the appropriate changes.
> >
>
> I just started working on a change over and two things
> have occurred to me - one, flying players (AFF_FLYING)
> can decidedly be either on the ground (STATE_STANDING)
> or in the air (STATE_FLYING), which opens up an
> interesting can of worms... and two (and FAR more
> significant), by redefining the POS_x values to
> bitvector form, you don't actually need to change much
> of the existing code. Since (1 << 5) is still a
> regular number (16), for example:
>
> assume GET_POS(ch) = POS_RESTING
>
> old:
> if (GET_POS(ch) > POS_SLEEPING) { blah; } ==>
> if (5 > 4) { blah; }
>
> new:
> if (GET_POS(ch) > POS_SLEEPING) { blah; } ==>
> if ((1 << 5) > (1 << 4)) { blah; } ==>
> if (16 > 8) { blah; }
>
> so all the existing checks should still work.
> Yes, some changes are still necessary, yes, but it
> doesn't totally break everything.
IMO, it's a great idea. I think I might implement it in my MUD :). The only thing
is that you have to change positions in bitvecter to like, dead, aware,
not_aware, sitting (resting=not_aware+sitting), standing (there would be one
standing+not_aware, between standing and siting), and various other things you
could do with it.
Good idea, again.
-Axiem
-axiem@swbell.net
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST