Re: do_set check

From: Daniel A. Koepke (
Date: 07/11/01

On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, George Greer wrote:

> ..., I consider it rather rude to silently change the command that was
> asked for.

Isn't it rather rude to completely ignore the effect of the command, then?

Perhaps we're coming at it from different angles, but it seems to me that
if you type 'set file foo sex male' you intend to change foo's gender to
male, and for the Mud to silently ignore you or even tell you that the
change "probably" won't take effect is a bit silly.  Does anyone use 'set
file' with the intention that the change not be made if the person is

Point being that if we ignore in_file, we're silently changing the
command, true, but changing it so it has the desired effect, rather than
have it say it's done something but not actually have any discernable

I think it's a judgement call, though.


   | FAQ: |
   | Archives: |

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