On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Daniel Koepke wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 1993, Judson Powers wrote:
>
> ->There's a lot more potential, in that if you convert to classes, you can
> ->use accessor functions, such as name() to get mName value. This lets a
> ->class apply modifiers without too much code. For example, if "Xane" is
> ->polymorphed into "a dragon", mName could store "Xane" like it normally
> ->would, mPolyData.mName would store "a dragon" and name() would return "a
> ->dragon" instead of "Xane" because Xane is polymorphed... get it? Lots of
> ->potential... unfortunately, it requires a lot of rewriting.
This is an example that appeals to me greatly... I coded polymorph about 2
years or so ago, and since it's been quite the bane of my future coding,
because of the implemention, I have to take poly into account when I code
ANYTHING "just in case"... wow, that really starts the brain a churning with
areas where it would help...
> More importantly, C++ has disadvantages as well. Anyone who knows
What is there in C that can't be used in C++? Is there any real problems to
keeping stuff as c structs that would make crappy classes? So far as I can
tell, almost everything C should work fine compiled in C++.
The more I think about this, the more I want to convert the MUD. If it's
worth it, I certainly don't mind the work involved, and code changes are
pretty small in happening right now, since we're working on spicing up the
world a little more, there's not much code involved in what we're doing.
Share And Enjoy!
Brazil - Implementor of AddictMUD
addict.dmswebworks.com 4000
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST