[DGD] kfun.h and kfuns for function pointers

[Felix A. Croes]

bart at wotf.org wrote:

> Looking at how I could determine from lpc if the driver is built with -DCLOSURES, I looked 
> at kfun.h and noticed they appear there as #define KF_NEW.FUNCTION etc, which 
> apparantly is accepted by the precompiler. However, #ifdef KF_NEW.FUNCTION results in a 
> 'bad token in control'.

That is a mistake, conf_includes() should replace the period with an
underscore.  The period should remain in the function names, since it
prevents explicit calls to those functions.


>[...]
> Also, I was wondering if ot would be a good idea to let ppcontrol.c add a define similar to 
> what it does for the network extensions. This would allow writing code that checks for this 
> in a way that is compatible with versions of dgd that didn't create kfun.h yet. Biggest 
> objection I can think of is not wanting to clutter the lpc environment with driver provided 
> defines.

I'm not in favour of having a predefined macro for this.  Just use
operator overloading in your mudlib, and it will only work with DGD
versions that generate kfun.h. :-)

Regards,
Felix Croes