[MUD-Dev] Re: PDMud thread summary

[Alex Oren]

On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 21:32:40 -0700, Chris Gray wrote:

} [Jon A. Lambert:]
} 
}  >An OO mud language needn't have any virtual tables.  Virtual 
}  >functions and the like are C++ specific.  You do have to settle on an 
}  >object format.  Perhaps this might be a better place to start?
}  >
}  >What properties do we desire a generic object to have?
} 
} Good clarification. Lets get back to generalities.
} 
} A generic object should have:
} 
}     - system-unique identifier of some kind (could be just a DB id).
} 	Likely not stored inside the object itself - no need.
}     - access rights in accordance with whatever security scheme is used
}     - ownership indication (if the system has an ownership concept)
}     - whatever (if any) other bookkeeping info is needed in order for it
} 	to be actually used in the system. E.g. perhaps a refcount.

I think we should look into the object model first.
Do we want single or multiple inheritance?  Static or dynamic binding?  Single
or multiple dispatch?  Vtables or name-based?  Etc...

See my other post for personal preference.

Have fun,
Alex.