At 04:17 PM 5/17/2002 Friday, you wrote: >On Fri, 17 May 2002 13:45:40 -0500, shay <shay@highstyleweb.com> wrote: > >> >>Not exactly. In the first case, if the 2nd argument (the 1) isn't a >>number, then assume that your grabbing the 1st one. In the second case, if >>the 1st argument is a number represented by a word, then the object is the >>next argument, otherwise the object is the 1st argument. Much like the >>dotmode is currently, just tweaked a bit. > >Here is a potiential side effect that just occurred to me. If you use >the "prettier" method of "get second sword" you introduce the possiblity >of confusion with object that use number words as keywords. > >For Example: >You have the following item. >Description: "Nazgul's second book of Necromancy." >Keywords: book, necromancy, nazguls, second > >How do you handle the command "read second"? (assumming the character >may also possess the first, third and fourth books of necromancy, which >is why they didn't just "read book".) Depends. In the case I suggested, you would only use 'two', not 'second'. So instead of saying: read second you would say read second two course, that looks silly, and only works if you have 2 of those books. If you only had one, then read second would work. Again, it depends on how you want to change it, and how far you're willing to go. I would think that going from '2.' to 'two' would be hard enough, without worrying about proper English.. ;) Course, I'm just a devils advocate.. >>I'm not saying it would be easy.. but could be done. > >Of course it could be done. The same is true of all the questions that >pop up on the list that follow the formula: "Is it possible to program X?" >The short, smart ass answer is: Yes. A more helpfull answer is: Yes, >given you are willing to spend the required amount of time and effort, >nearly anything can be programmed into the mud. I thought that was what I meant by "I'm not saying it would be easy...". >A better question to ask is: Is new feature X worth the time and effort >it would take to program? The answer will vary depending on how much the >new feature is wanted and the programmers skill. I think that given the >original poster's question was basically "How can I remove dotmodes?" the >variable parameter scheme you describe is probably beyond their coding >skills. Will going from 2.sword to sword 2 really be worth the effort? True it could be beyond their coding skills, but I felt it was an interesting topic and was inclined to expand upon it. I really don't feel that I went to far beyond what they were looking for. If they think so, then I am sorry for losing there train of thought. >In any case if you, or anyone else, implement the new system, I recommend >having it exist side by side with the dotmode method. If you take it out >completely, I garauntee it won't be long before you get some players asking >"How come 'wear 2.pants' doesn't work anymore?" I completely agree. I'm thinking of doing the same in mine.. but I find many other things that need doing first.. as usual.. doncha just luv programmin? :) -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | | Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html | | Newbie List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/circle-newbies/ | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 06/25/03 PDT