Re: Hiya folks...

From: Graham Gilmore (
Date: 08/22/95

On Wed, 16 Aug 1995, Daniel [Trice] Koepke wrote:

> > 	Wouldn't this just make the PC one notch hungrier?  You'd need to 
> > GET_COND(ch, FULL) = -1 for that... if any FULL condition of < 0 is no 
> > hunger, then a mod of -25 would work fine.. but I'm not sure if that's 
> > the case.  It could easily be done tho.. just change = -1 to <= -1 in the 
> > appropriate spot.
> 	What?  What planet did you come from?  Better yet, what kind of C 
> compiler do you use?
> 	GET_COND(ch, FULL) = -1 makes someone not get hungry.

	Exactly what I was saying.  Perhaps I didn't make myself very 
clear, because a number of people seem to have been confused by what I 
said ;)
	What I meant to say was, using a mod of -1 for APPLY_HUNGER (or 
whatever the precise bit is) would do GET_COND(ch, FULL) += -1... which 
would make the person 1 notch hungrier, not eliminate their hunger.  To 
eliminate their hunger, you would need GET_COND(ch, FULL) = -1.

> 	Changing GET_COND(ch, FULL) = -1 to GET_COND(ch, FULL) <= -1
> isn't a suggested method.
				    ^^ not meant to be an assignment in 
this case, but rather a simple equals... sorry if this caused even more 
confusion ;)
	I was proposing to set the condition of elimination of hunger to 
GET_COND(ch, FULL) <= -1 instead of GET_COND(ch, FULL) == -1 , if the 
latter is what it currently is.	
	I haven't looked into this, but the reason I suggested it was so 
that you could set your mod to -25, and so have GET_COND(ch, FULL) -= 
25.. regardless of your hunger at the time of wearing the item or 
whatever, it would be <= -1 with the APPLY_HUNGER..

	Graham Gilmore

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST