From: Leonardo Herrera (
Date: 08/17/00

Patrick Dughi wrote:
>         I personally think that using self-descriptive world file formats
> would be a good idea (XML seems a bit overblown for this.. maybe ascii
> pfile tag-lines). Using this sort of syntax, including the _type_ of
> variable saved (number, and what's its range, is it a bitvector; or text,
> etc) would be possible.  Worse comes to worse, you could even have the
> world format described in some sort of custom script.

I still think that XMLDOM is a good thing...

>         This is all very possible, and all doable.
>         But it's a severe pain in the neck.

The Big Issue here is the GUI... we should stay in text-mode, or use a fancy
graphical interface?

>         I think that a good first step would be to simply have a standard,
> open source circlemud editor.  Built in the same way circlemud was - no
> frills, but easy to expand upon.  After a while, the momentum may gather
> to include some sort of automatic configuration file.  I know I'd make my
> copy of the editor download the files directly to the mud and alter
> rooms/areas in real time, as well as upload a configuration file and
> conversion rules for areas existing pre-conversion.  Guess I'd have to
> stick a versioning system in there.  In anycase though, it doesn't matter,
> because there is no editor like that out there.

I like the idea of an open-source implementation of an editor. Some time ago, I
wrote a Windows-based circlemud editor, but I lost all the sources... I really
like the idea of joining an open source project to do this.

>         The only source I have found was written for borland OWL format,
> and that was source I had a retired developer finally send me.  The
> program didn't work very well, and I couldn't recompile it due to the
> different dependancies on the borland system (I had cygnus and MSVC at the
> time).

Mmmh... sounds familiar...

>         If anyone wants to collaborate on that sort of a project, I have
> been kicking a few ideas around.  The only thing I'm really stuck on
> though, is that we make the source as free to have as circle's.
>                                                 PjD

I like that idea... I currently haven't any mud online, but I like to
collaborate to make good complementary tools.

> p.s.  Is there any good reason why the diagonal directions are not
> standard in circle?  I know it's a frill, but it seems like if someone
> doesn't want them, they just don't have to use them.  No code changes
> required, just don't make diagonal exits.  Many seem to want them though.

This makes sense to me...

(Sorry for my english)
Leonardo Herrera

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/11/01 PDT