[DGD] test

[Noah Gibbs]

  Somebody already mentioned the excellent possibility
of using compilation of strings, which would probably
be the best way.
  But you could also, for function pointers, use a
two-element array of strings -- the object name and
the function name.  It'd be easy to make them
dynamically, and easy assign them.  Calling them would
just require you to use call_other.

--- Christian McCarron <larnen at elephant.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:18:06PM -0400, Stephen
> Schmidt wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Lucifer wrote:
> > > Eh... since you ask me what i need and i am
> quite new to dgd... could
> > > you tell me about the grammar differences
> between dgd and 'traditional
> > > lpc' (I only have some experience with MudOS
> before)?
> > 
> > I was a MudOS hacker for about five years before
> switching to DGD.
> > 
> > I never had any trouble moving between drivers.
> DGD has rather
> > fewer (I'm probably mixing MudOS and DGD
> terminology here, so
> > forgive me) driver-supplied functions than MudOS,
> but most of
> > the critical ones are the same, and many of the
> ones not in
> > DGD will be provided, sometimes under the same
> name, by the
> > mudlib you use. There's a few changes, of course,
> but nothing
> > difficult to get used to.
> 
> The thing thats causing me problems looking at
> moving from MudOS to
> DGD (something I'd love to do on many, many levels)
> is the function
> pointers. We use anonymous functions a lot, and
> we've been quite
> creative in some of the uses we've put them to. Even
> basic functionality
> like map(arr,(: code :)) seems to have no easy fix
> without turning the
> code into a whole new function and calling it. Other
> things like macros
> which auto-construct arbitarily layered function
> pointers for dynamic
> descriptions etc really look like they'd need a
> total rewrite, at the core
> and in every single room that uses them.
> 
> Since the mud I run is in its 11th year, as you can
> imagine we have an
> awfully large number of rooms!
> 
> I understand that Dworkin doesn't like fp's/closures
> etc, but is there any
> way these can be done via a package? Whether or not
> fp's are the best way to
> do this kind of thing (although we have found them
> incredibly useful), some
> way to include the syntax in the driver as an
> optional package would allow
> a lot of MudOS libs to move to DGD with far more
> ease. Given that MudOS dev
> is more or less dead, this could inject a lot of new
> blood, and a lot of
> experienced developers into the DGD community.


=====
------
noah_gibbs at yahoo.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________________
List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd