Re: [Idea?] AFF flags and expansion

From: Edward J Glamkowski (
Date: 06/03/02

> I was just posting it as a theory really, it seemed an easier
> way for people that were new to coding, or circle mud in general
> than to try to apply the 128 bit patch, or bitfields.

I personally think it's harder to use an AFF2_, AFF3_ approach.
Anywhere you check for AFF_ you have to check all the other AFFx_
vectors as well.  Unless you know the flag you want is on a certain
vector and you can reference that vector directly.  But then you lose
transperency.  It's best (i.e. simplest, especially for newbies) to
have a uniform method of dealing with arbitrary bits.

Bitvector arrays are probably best in that they look and behave most
similar to what is already there.  Good also because they are
portable, unlike bitfields :/   But not so good in that you could
be wasting a lot of memory, depending on the size of your player
base.  If you've only got 20 people you probably don't care, but if
you've got 1,000 you probably should.

> The compatibility is also an issue, when it comes to bitfields, and
> I was wondering if many people had converted to that option.

Good luck finding out - I asked on this list previously and the whole
3 or 4 people who responded seemed to be using the bitvector array
approach.  But I know there are a lot more people then 3 or 4 on this
list :p   Even given that a fair number don't run an active mud (like
me), there's gotta be more subscribers then that who do.  Oh well.

>However, my total project consists of only needing 53 different AFF
>flags, and I thought it was probably an easier way to go.

Only 53?  Ever?!  EVER!!  MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!!  Famous last words }:)

Eh, sorry.

Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably
Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail.
Sign up today at

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

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