Re: Hiya folks...

From: Daniel [Trice] Koepke (
Date: 08/22/95

On Tue, 22 Aug 1995, Graham Gilmore wrote:

> 	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

It is my understanding, although I've not looked at the code, having FULL 
being 0 means you ARE hungry, while at 25 your full.  This makes more 
English logic, which I believe Jeremy was trying to follow with most of 
his code.  Where as having a DRUNK of 0 would convert to simple English 
as "Your not drunk," having a FULL of 0 would convert to simple English 
as "Your not full".  Although it is presumptious to assume he is 
following English grammar with his code, I would assume he named the 
specific defines as such to prevent this type of confusion.

Also, following "simple" math rules:

	GET_COND(ch, FULL) -= mod;

Would decrease FULL by the mod UNLESS mod was negative.

	GET_COND(ch, FULL) -= -25;

This ADDs 25 to the condition because your taking away the negative value 
(basically, it's like saying you don't have no money (hence you do) -- 
it's a double negative).

If I'm correct:

	GET_COND(ch, FULL) <= -1;

Is not a valid statement, if it is then I've either forgot about it or 
no-one ever used it (I am a self-taught programmer, after 4 or 5 years 
it's difficult to tell the difference anyway :)).  Unless you mean that 
you would want to set FULL condition under -1, which would probably make 
Circle vomit or treat it as if it were -1.  (or it could just be that 
it's early, I haven't slept yet, and I'm not reading what your saying 

If the way full is determined is for 25 to be full and 0 to be empty 
(this would be more logical, I feel like a vulcan..), this whole thing is 
pointless and the following code should work:

	    GET_COND(ch, FULL) += mod;

Since I'm on a nice Pentium w/ Win95 right now (game development machine 
for ShadowDragon, Ent.), if you wouldn't mind looking into the Circle 
code and reporting back to me on this issue.  Although I am not running 
my MUD at current, it does interest me.

 _____ ____ _______         |
 \   _\     \    __\        + Daniel Koepke :
   \ _  \  \  \   _\_       | Global Infonet  is a low cost  internet
     \____\_____\_____\     + provider for the San Fransisco Bay Area
 ShadowDragon Entertainment |

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