[MUD-Dev] Re: PDMud thread summary

[Chris Gray]

[Niklas Elmqvist:]

 >Hmm, not sure what you're getting at here, but yes, the base class in the
 >executable must be made adequate since it must be used for all accessing
 >of the objects (at least on the driver level). And are we sure we will
 >support MUD-language code modules on this level? IMHO, MUD-language is
 >better suited to in-world stuff.

I don't disagree with that. I'm just trying to keep our options open,
since others wanted MUD-language and native stuff to be interchangeable.

 >Yes, but the alternative would be "just another C MUD", or what? Do you
 >refer to some specific phenomenon?

Consider it just another instance of me muttering about C++ taking over
the world, until replaced by the next fad. Just ignore it.

 >Yes, but since we will call some sort of structure here, the prototype can
 >be fixed to void IMCCall(Message *hMsg) or something. The Message class
 >can be subclassed to provide specific functionality. This is also where I
 >was talking about having the innards of Message be serialized if needed.

Another area where I was trying to keep our options open. While doing other
things earlier, I tried to come up with a pithy way of stating my
concerns over efficiency. The result is in my .sig.

--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation. - me

Chris Gray     cg at ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA