Re: The Semantics of Switch

From: George (greerga@DRAGON.HAM.MUOHIO.EDU)
Date: 10/07/97

On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Andrew Helm wrote:

>> Don't read mail while switched.
>> Your gods don't do it and if they do, you delete them.
>Okay, but why wouldn't someone want to fix the behavior?
>Also, why wouldn't an implementor want to be informed that the
>switch command can be used in that way?

There are applications of switch being able to read mail that _may_
actually be useful.  You never know when it will be useful until you can't
do it.  I find that policy is better in this regard.  Some day you may find
that someone has sent a message they really regret that they don't want
someone to read and you (being a sucker) decide to retrieve the mail so the
other person doesn't read it.  There is no reason to arbitrarily restrict
things in a MUD which would be better implemented as a policy. (Like gods
can go around killing people and grouping with them currently, once again,
this is mostly a policy matter.  I'm not saying it is not a code problem,
but the majority of the problem is the inability to control your

>Right. I'm not saying you shouldn't fix the mud to let you read
>other player's mail with ease. It might mean making a command that
>loads another char so you can switch into them or a command that
>let's you read other people's mail without loading their char.

What's the difference between switching into a link dead person and loading
up another copy of the player to get their mail?  Or just changing my IDnum
so I can get their mail? (Although the last one is a very BadIdea.)

>Either way the unmodified behavior the mud needs fixed. It's not

The code is not broke, your policy is.

>at all useful unless you change it around independant of whichever
>side of the "mail snooping" argument you stand on. We agree, you
>just insist on calling the unintended behavior of the switch
>command a feature and refuse to accept that anyone might think
>of it as a bug. I'm sorry to see you caught up on such a
>silly  point.

In my example above I mentioned grouping immortals, immortals killing
players, and there is also immortals casting spells on people, immortals
giving out information.  You have to draw a line between what is policy and
what is coded.  I'm not accusing you of anything, but you seem to be doing
that of me.  I have no problem with policy versus code.  I also believe
from the mail on this list that your position has little support.  Policy
is there for a reason. Use it.

George Greer  -   | Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity | is not thus handicapped. -- Elbert Hubbard

     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     | |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST