Re: send_to_charf, Take 2

From: Peter Ajamian (
Date: 07/09/01

George Greer wrote:


I'd say that we should go with one of these two possibilities for act():

>   act("$n says, '%s'", FALSE, ch, 0, 0, TO_ROOM, argument);
>   act(FALSE, TO_ROOM, "$n says, '%s'", ch, argument);

and not:

>   act(FALSE, ch, 0, 0, TO_ROOM, "$n says, '%s'", argument);

The argument being that either we take compatibility into account (the
first format), or if we choose not to do that, then why should we stick
with anything resembling the old fixed-arg format?

As a compromise a new actf() could be created in the secondary format
above.  Doing this virtually eliminates the need to have variable-arg
functions for anything else (actf(FALSE, TO_CHAR, "...", ch) becomes
quite as usefull as send_to_char("...", ch)).

What you do then is depreciate usage of the old send_to_... and act()
functions in favor of the newer actf() and eventually can drop support
for them alltogether.

my $.02

Regards, Peter

   | FAQ: |
   | Archives: |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/06/01 PST