I put out an example, as did you. Your point can be taken for both
codes. Both methods can be messy in one way or another. Both will not
be supported by all muds either. I tried to provide a simple method.
Yours involved creating a macro. My point was to simplify the code by
adding one "if" statement (how messy can that get?). If the mud does
not have a CON_DISCONNECT then I guess that coder would definitly know
for a fact that they would have to modify it and adjust it.
Anyways, I give up on the conversation. I guess adding a macro to do
a check is better than doing an if statement. Adding 15 lines of code
is better than adding one.
"Jon A. Nielsen" wrote:
>
> > I did a check through the code, and there is no code that would be
> > compromised by changing CON_DISCONNECT to 18 and adding a CON before it.
> > If All OLC states are after CON_DISCONNECT, there is no problem adding
> > one
> > before CON_DISCONNECT.
> > again, less code and no need for macro's.
>
> However, that's messy. Besides, you're putting out code that's not
> supported by all MUDs anyway. I know the MUD I work for doesn't even have a
> CON_DISCONNECT. And you could be telling someone who has something
> different as well, and just making it more confusing.
>
> And, anyway, it doesn't matter. It's a moot point, really.
>
> ___
> Jon A. Nielsen
> Lazarus of Spear of Insanity MUD
> spear.kilnar.com:1066
> http://spear.kilnar.com/
>
> +------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
> | http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html |
> +------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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 : 04/10/01 PDT