[DGD] Shadows issue

[Shentino]

One question I have...

What if you have a shadowed function that has variable changing side
effects?

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Noah Gibbs <noah_gibbs at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> --- On Fri, 7/17/09, Kamil N <kamiln at gmail.com> wrote:
> > shadows had lots drawbacks (determining which
> > object is going
> > to be the final one masking when more than one shadows is
> > applied and
> > they all mask the same function, security issues etc), but
> > in some
> > cases they were really useful.
>
>   Makes sense.  You'd need a defined order for shadows, and to figure it
> out explicitly, if you were going to use multiple.  It's actually the same
> kind of problem that inherited functions have -- and solve in different ways
> in different languages.
>
> > Other than that maybe just coding mudlib so it can deal
> > with any kind
> > of situation, so if player sits it adds proper
> > descriptions, if hes
> > mounted, it adds proper leave/arrive messages etc. But all
> > this
> > requires basically everything to be designed at the start,
> > and shadows
> > allowed to create things that noone ever thought about when
> > creating
> > base mudlib, but they were still possible to achieve
> > through
> > shadowing.
>
>   Part of the problem is that you won't be able to achieve everything
> shadows do without getting some of their problems.  A lot of the reason for
> the security problems is that shadows can do things people don't expect or
> think about, and which are often a bad idea.  If you had a well-defined set
> of properties and descriptions that they could override then yes, you lose
> some power.  But it's power you really shouldn't be putting into your
> builders' hands without a *very* good reason.
>
> > Also, any way to do this "body" exchange I described? Maybe
> > instead of
> > just inheriting it, storing it in some "object body", and
> > changing
> > object associated with it when its needed? But then I'll
> > need to call
> > all the functions on body instead of actual player object,
> > or find a
> > way to somehow delegate them to the body?
>
>   Yes.  This has the added advantage that if you write more of your
> functions this way, you can use them on NPCs with less modification, too.
>  Since the NPCs and players both have body objects, code knows how to deal
> with either one unless you make it specific somehow.  At least, that's my
> preferred way to do it.
>
>  Saving the original body can be hard, as previous posters pointed out.
>  But not ridiculously hard, just "you have to make an effort" hard :-)
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>