Re: buf, buf1, buf2, arg: J J & E

From: Del (
Date: 07/21/01

George Greer wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Del wrote:
> >Was not the intention to stablize the code? Was not the buffers and zones
> >stable in the first place?
> -      sprintf(buf, "You say, '%s'\r\n", argument);
> -      send_to_char(buf, ch);
> +      send_to_char(ch, "You say, '%s'\r\n", argument);
> These changes make the code unstable?  The majority of the changes will be
> no-brainers.  Only a few places have any sort of reworking that will take
> thinking to confirm.

I didn't say the changes that were put in has anything to do with making the
code unstable, but does the changes removes instability?

This is my point, you have changed the usage of send_to_char which will
undoubtfully cause havoc for those who have modified code and want to update
to the latest bpl. Having to manually go through every instance of modificaton
and changing every send_to_char to fit. Would it not have been wiser to
add a function such as SEND_TO_CHAR so all previous uses of send_to_char
from older patches/modifications/snippets/whatnot can still be used.
Every single patch that has a send_to_char will now have to be modified in
order to work with this new version (Not saying that it didn't in the first
place). oh boy.. It doesn't matter what happens next, every newbie will be
screaming left and right about putting in patches.
I hate to say it, but I think this was a bad choice. It definitly should
have waited for the next version.
(Or am I missing something here that would still allow snippets/patches
to go in without too much trouble?)

   | FAQ: |
   | Archives: |

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