[DGD] Annoying n00b questions

[Noah Gibbs]

  ANSI:  you can adapt the ANSI patch, it's not tough.  Alternately, you can do
what Phantasmal (my MUDlib) does and use the binary port and implement your own
telnet protocol.  It's not too tough, especially since Phantasmal is public
domain, so you can just steal it.

  The Kernel library has a "code" command that lets you do the evaluation on
the fly.  Phantasmal has the same thing, aliased.  It's pretty easy to compile
DGD objects on the fly, so code evaluation usually does that.  Put an object
together with the appropriate chunk of code in a known function name.  Compile
the object, make the object, call the function on the object.  Boom, the code
gets run.  DGD compiles fast, so don't worry about the delay.

--- Kurt Nordstrom <kurt at blar.net> wrote:

> Hello everybody.  Recently I started dabbling in DGD again after some 
> time spent messing with MUSH/MUX and MOO.  LPC is like returning to an 
> old friend with whom I had some occasional squabbles. ;)
> 
> I do have some questions that perhaps somebody might have some insight 
> into.  So, here goes...
> 
> 1) I want ANSI.  My understanding is that the vanilla driver filters 
> this out.  I see an ANSI patch for 1.1, but I'm running 12.x.  Does 
> anybody know if it works on the latest source tree?  The same goes for 
> the regular expression patches that I see.  I know that you can use 
> parse_string for regexp matching, but I'm really not ready to learn that 
> much right now. ;)
> 
> 2) MOO and MUSH have spoiled me in that it's pretty simple to evaluate a 
> statement of code on the fly to see what will happen.  Is there any way 
> to do this in DGD?  Has somebody come up with a clever wiztoy to allow 
> for that sort of thing?  If such a thing violates DGD's philosophy, 
> please educate me. :)
> 
> 3) I'm using the Melville lib as my base.  I'm thinking that I might 
> want to implement a public interface on the player object for storing 
> and retrieving generic properties. (e.g. set_property(string name, mixed 
> value), get_property(string name) ) For example, if I had a "tell" 
> command, it might want to store a "sender" property in the recipient so 
> that this property could be checked for by a subsequent "reply" 
> command.  Stuff like that.  Is there any reason that this might be a bad 
> idea?
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts.  I do appreciate 'em.
> 
> -Kurt
> __________________________________________
> http://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> 




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com