[DGD]compile_object() kfun

[Par Winzell]

 > > My alternative hypothesis is that since recompiling an existing
 > > object does not call create() in the object, the object is not
 > > re-initialized and keeps using the old data.
 > 
 > I believe that'd explain all the results. I'll pass that
 > back to the people who made the original bug report.
 > 
 > Design question: Should the update command call create()
 > in the object in such a case? I think perhaps it should.
 > Anyone have an opinion one way or the other?

Hell, no. That'd kill 98% of the reason for upgrades in the first place;
typically for a daemon object the create functions reads something like,

	static void create() {
		user_objects = ([ ]);
	}

and when you make a small API modification in your sixth year of running
a successful commercial game and your 'update' command deliberately zaps
your user database, as sort of a side-effect of recompiling the code,
you're going to be pretty damn pissed. :-)

Zell


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