[DGD] Re: DGD Intermud-3 Channel

[Gregory D Lewis]

> >Has parse_string() been of any use in the implementation?
> 
> 
> Not currently, no.  I can, however, identify several areas where it could be
> of use.  I'll probably go ahead and finish the implementation sans
> parse_string() and then go back and identify where it could be used and look
> at it a little more closely.  Things like command parsing, config file
> parsing, help file parsing, etc. could probably benefit more from
> parse_string() than could the I-3 stuff, but I may be a bit premature in
> claiming such.  It's definitely something to consider.
> 
> jc

I have a note in my mudos save/restore implementations to convert to
parse_string in the restore case, which is essentially the same task as
parsing the incoming I3 packet.  I think that would probably be a good use
of parse_string but I need to find time to study parse_string a bit more
first (vaguely following it in this mailing list doesn't quite cut it :).

This of course raises the issue of updating to the experimental branch as
I've currently been sticking to the stable branch (however parse_string is
one of the big things I was waiting for so its certainly a motivation to
swap).  Do people have opinions on whether mudlibs should be developed for
the stable or experimental branches I wonder?

With parse_string available I'd quite like to see the development of a fairly
standard closure/function pointer syntax for DGD using it.  I think this is
one area DGD is somewhat lacking (IMHO).  Of course the trick is to think up
a compact yet readable and intuitive syntax :).

Just some random thoughts.

-- 
Greg Lewis                              Applied Maths Department
Email : glewis at maths.adelaide.edu.au    University of Adelaide
--
Lazlo's Chinese Relativity Axiom:
	No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats --
	approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.



List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd