Re: Reconsidering Special Procedure Semantics Change

From: George Greer (
Date: 03/12/02

On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, Daniel A. Koepke wrote:

>I'm reconsidering changing special procedures to differentiate between mob
>and violence pulse calls.  The problem is that much of the existing
>spec-procs rely upon ch being the mobile when there is no command.

That could be considered a bug since you should assume 'me' is yourself,
but not 'ch'.  Not that it helps anything other than what you call that
changes that have to be done.

>These sorts of changes can get ugly; the problem is the side-effect of
>altering the behavior of existing code (almost all non-stock spec-procs).
>This indicates to me that this is NOT an appropriate change for a beta
>release.  Any thoughts?

Splitting the special procedure into three (or four) functions, but that'll
go over like a lead balloon.  At least you could have stuff like Puff with
a magic user battle script.  Shopkeepers wouldn't be so hackish either.

George Greer

   | FAQ: |
   | Archives: |
   | Newbie List:   |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 06/25/03 PDT