> I did a check through the code, and there is no code that would be
> compromised by changing CON_DISCONNECT to 18 and adding a CON before it.
> If All OLC states are after CON_DISCONNECT, there is no problem adding
> one
> before CON_DISCONNECT.
> again, less code and no need for macro's.
However, that's messy. Besides, you're putting out code that's not
supported by all MUDs anyway. I know the MUD I work for doesn't even have a
CON_DISCONNECT. And you could be telling someone who has something
different as well, and just making it more confusing.
And, anyway, it doesn't matter. It's a moot point, really.
___
Jon A. Nielsen
Lazarus of Spear of Insanity MUD
spear.kilnar.com:1066
http://spear.kilnar.com/
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/01 PDT