[DGD] Is self nesting ALWAYS a bug?

[Shentino]

On a more polite note, escheresque muds are intriguing...

My gripes are just from an engineering perspective and I bear no animosity
towards any creative ideas.

The "offending" wizard was bct, my server admin, btw.  And I'd like to thank
him for being my first alpha tester.  His poking has already yielded some
insights into making phantasmal friendly.

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Shentino <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps on a theoretical level it's good to experiment with.
>
> However, this "discussion" actually came up at a more immediate and
> practical level, where someone was wizzing on the phantasmal test server and
> managed to chew up all his ticks by looking at something he was holding
> which he was standing inside of.  A weasel, to be precise.
>
> Needless to say, something probably got into an infinite recursion because
> the call stack shown at error point was quite deep indeed with call loops.
> Having had experience with recursive containment anomalies on kotaka (which
> is why it was hardcoded out), I immediately sought to apply the same
> solution to phantasmal.
>
> And that's when the argument started.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Noah Gibbs <noah_gibbs at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>  There are MUDs where self-containment is allowed, and that fact is a
>> feature.  JC Lawrence had a test MUD with some neat semantics for
>> self-containment and seeing "infinite" (many levels, visible to the end
>> user) objects.  In addition to self-containment, the same MUD allowed mirror
>> objects of various kinds which showed inside other objects, and had lines of
>> sight.  So in addition to self-containment, you could also have a room with
>> mirrors on both sides, showing a large number of you and your room's
>> contents.
>>
>>  I don't remember whether he had a fixed cutoff for the number of
>> repetitions of this that he showed, or if he just detected cycles and did
>> the textual equivalent of "... and so on".
>>
>>  So whether it's a bug depends on your MUD.  Doing an "EscherMUD" thing
>> isn't for everybody.  But it isn't guaranteed to be a bad thing.
>>
>>  However, that doesn't mean you need to allow it.
>>
>> --- On Fri, 3/20/09, Shentino <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > From: Shentino <shentino at gmail.com>
>> > Subject: [DGD] Is self nesting ALWAYS a bug?
>> > To: "All about Dworkin's Game Driver" <dgd at dworkin.nl>
>> > Date: Friday, March 20, 2009, 5:32 PM
>> > Me and someone else who I am choosing to keep anonymous at
>> > this time just
>> > got into a huge debate of whether cyclic containment is
>> > ever a legitimate
>> > circumstance.
>> >
>> > Personally I think that allowing an object to contain
>> > itself, even
>> > indirectly (or similiarly, be a detail of its container, or
>> > be contained by
>> > its own detail) will cause no end of anomalies, infinite
>> > loops, logical
>> > absurdities, and whatnot.
>> >
>> > But based on runtime overhead, there are concerns over
>> > whether a trace-up is
>> > a good investment of ticks just to prevent this.
>> >
>> > Opinions?
>> >
>> > Kotaka btw has self containment outlawed at the core, and
>> > not even an
>> > administrator is allowed to override it.  This is in large
>> > part due to the
>> > fact that kotaka's world saves are based upon cascading
>> > the save downwards.
>> > Phantasmal, however, is flat and based on object numbers.
>> >
>> > I'm thinking though that cache-hot roots would minimize
>> > a good part of the
>> > overhead.
>> > ___________________________________________
>> > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>>
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________________
>> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>>
>
>