Re: do_set check

From: George Greer (
Date: 07/12/01

On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Daniel A. Koepke wrote:

>Five minutes or less; probably less.  Or is saved permanently.  There are
>three possible (visible) outcomes for 'set file' on an online player, as
>it stands:
>  1) The command had a visible effect, for up to 5 minutes.

That's if they're flagged PLR_CRASH.  If they're sitting around chatting
they won't be flagged for save.  They'll be flagged as soon as they gain or
lose an item. Not that it particularly matters, the behavior is essentially
random anyway given the right circumstances.

>> Moving from bad situation to bad situation isn't an improvement, ...
>And keeping a bad situation, but presenting a warning about or an extra
>step to evoke the braindead behavior is an improvement?  If assuming that
>the immortal wants something set when they type 'set file' (and not some
>random effect) is wrong, then there's only one legitimate reply: tell
>them they can't do it and return.  Adding 'set force file' isn't
>necessary.  I assume if the person can create a need for 'set file' to
>work on online players (without comitting to memory), they can remove the
>three lines the warning would constitute; otherwise, it's undesirable to
>be able to evoke random behavior from a valid command.

Moving from a bad situation to a good situation would be removing the
'file' flag completely.  Adding the warning is still a bad situation.
Changing the 'file' command silently to a memory command is still bad.

George Greer

   | FAQ: |
   | Archives: |

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