> Arn't those two redundant? From my checking, you can have
>
> Person.inventory object->next->next->next
> \ \-contains->next
> \->contains->next->next->next
> \->contains
>
> without ever needing the next_content. Is that just around for historical
> reasons? I'm attempting to simplify somewhat and redo the load/save
routines.
>
> Am I totally off-base or can this be brought in-line?
>
struct obj_data {
<...>
struct obj_data *next_content; /* For 'contains' lists */
struct obj_data *next; /* For the object list */
};
Actually, unless I am mistaken, the next pointer is used soley for the
global linked list of objects, and is not referenced at all when you are
moving objects around. next_content is used in separate linked lists,
headed by either room_data.contents, char_data.carrying, or
obj_data.contains.
For verification, you can just dig through handler.c, which contains all
the linked-list management functions.
--Ben Cartwright
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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