Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

items across multiple sources

Expand Messages
  • Paul W. King
    What is the generally accepted practice in coding items that are found in multiple sources? For example, I have Publisher A that has sources M and N. Both
    Message 1 of 28 , Dec 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      What is the generally accepted practice in coding items that are
      found in multiple sources?

      For example, I have Publisher A that has sources M and N. Both have
      spell X in them. I have M already coded and am beginning to work on
      N. When coding X, do I do an INCLUDE in the *.pcc? I seem to recall
      that INCLUDE and EXCLUDE are memory style hogs...or some other such
      thing.

      Paul W. King
      OGL SB and BoD
    • Paul Grosse
      ... I was curious on this too. What happens if you have x spell in datasets A & Q. Does one overwrite each other? Or does it just combine all the data into one
      Message 2 of 28 , Dec 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > What is the generally accepted practice in coding items that
        > are found in multiple sources?
        >
        > For example, I have Publisher A that has sources M and N.
        > Both have spell X in them. I have M already coded and am
        > beginning to work on N. When coding X, do I do an INCLUDE in
        > the *.pcc? I seem to recall that INCLUDE and EXCLUDE are
        > memory style hogs...or some other such thing.
        >
        > Paul W. King
        > OGL SB and BoD
        >
        >

        I was curious on this too. What happens if you have x spell in datasets
        A & Q. Does one overwrite each other? Or does it just combine all the
        data into one spell?

        Also posting this onto the PCGen_experimental list.

        Paul "Yes that Paul" Grosse
        PCGen OGL Chimp & LST Lemure-in-training
        ICQ: 14397299
        AO: Nylan
        Various forums: Nylan (or Nylanfs)

        "The Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to
        keep all it's eggs in." - Robert Heinlein
      • taluroniscandar
        ... Spell.lst is one of the few files that handles the having the same name in different files without much problem (due, in part, to the programming done for
        Message 3 of 28 , Dec 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Grosse" <pgrosse@m...>
          wrote:
          >
          > >
          > > What is the generally accepted practice in coding items that
          > > are found in multiple sources?
          > >
          > > For example, I have Publisher A that has sources M and N.
          > > Both have spell X in them. I have M already coded and am
          > > beginning to work on N. When coding X, do I do an INCLUDE in
          > > the *.pcc? I seem to recall that INCLUDE and EXCLUDE are
          > > memory style hogs...or some other such thing.
          > >
          > > Paul W. King
          > > OGL SB and BoD
          > >
          > >
          >
          > I was curious on this too. What happens if you have x spell in datasets
          > A & Q. Does one overwrite each other? Or does it just combine all the
          > data into one spell?
          >
          > Also posting this onto the PCGen_experimental list.

          Spell.lst is one of the few files that handles the having the same
          name in different files without much problem (due, in part, to the
          programming done for psionics). Spells with the same name but from
          different sources show up on the spell tab independently of one another.
        • Eric Beaudoin
          ... I do not hold the Grail for this one but here is what I think: If the two objects are the exact same If both source are normally distributed together or
          Message 4 of 28 , Dec 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            At 13:45 2003.12.01, Paul Grosse wrote:
            >>
            >> What is the generally accepted practice in coding items that
            >> are found in multiple sources?
            >>
            >> For example, I have Publisher A that has sources M and N.
            >> Both have spell X in them. I have M already coded and am
            >> beginning to work on N. When coding X, do I do an INCLUDE in
            >> the *.pcc? I seem to recall that INCLUDE and EXCLUDE are
            >> memory style hogs...or some other such thing.
            >>
            >> Paul W. King
            >> OGL SB and BoD
            >>
            >>
            >
            >I was curious on this too. What happens if you have x spell in datasets
            >A & Q. Does one overwrite each other? Or does it just combine all the
            >data into one spell?

            I do not hold the Grail for this one but here is what I think:

            If the two objects are the exact same

            If both source are normally distributed together or one of the source
            if SRD, MSRD or RSRD

            Have one source include the other in the .PCC with the proper
            EXCLUDE thingy



            Everything else

            One of the source (maybe both) need to have a something to
            distinguish it from the other.

            e.g. Ranger and Ranger (Monte Cook)

            In that case, the OUTPUTNAME tag is used to have the normal name displayed on the CSHEET.

            e.g.

            Ranger (Monte Cook) OUTPUTNAME:Ranger


            Hope that helps, feel free not to agree with me and propose a better solution.


            -----------------------------------------------------------
            √Čric "Space Monkey" Beaudoin (hiding in the trench)
            >> In space, no one can hear you sleep.
            >> Camels to can climb trees (and sometime eat them).
            <mailto:beaudoer@...>
          • Barak
            I think, if it s described in enough detail in whatever the source is, it needs to go into the data set so it is a true representation of the source, even if
            Message 5 of 28 , Dec 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              I think, if it's described in enough detail in whatever the source is,
              it needs to go into the data set so it is a true representation of the
              source, even if it's a duplicate of another source.

              There is no guarantee that I want to use source M just so I can use
              source N, and using INCLUDES & EXCLUDES (as discussed on the dev forum)
              causes a major slowdown in loading.

              Barak
              ~PCGen BoD
              ~OS Silverback


              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Paul W. King [mailto:paulking.rhochi@...]
              >
              >
              > What is the generally accepted practice in coding items that are
              > found in multiple sources?
              >
              > For example, I have Publisher A that has sources M and N. Both have
              > spell X in them. I have M already coded and am beginning to work on
              > N. When coding X, do I do an INCLUDE in the *.pcc? I seem to recall
              > that INCLUDE and EXCLUDE are memory style hogs...or some other such
              > thing.
              >
              > Paul W. King
              > OGL SB and BoD
            • Paul W. King
              Just to see if I am understanding you. I have source A and B. Both have the *exact* same spell, X, in them. So, say A is completely done, and work on B is
              Message 6 of 28 , Dec 1, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Just to see if I am understanding you. I have source A and B. Both have
                the *exact* same spell, X, in them. So, say A is completely done, and work
                on B is beginning. B's *.pcc would have

                SPELL:Bspells.lst|Aspells.lst(INCLUDE:X)

                Is that correct?

                Paul W. King
                OGL SB and BoD
                -----Original Message-----
                From: Eric Beaudoin [mailto:beaudoer@...]
                Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:46 PM
                To: PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com
                Cc: pcgen_experimental@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [pcgen_experimental] RE: [PCGenListFileHelp] items across
                multiple sources


                I do not hold the Grail for this one but here is what I think:

                If the two objects are the exact same

                If both source are normally distributed together or one of the source
                if SRD, MSRD or RSRD

                Have one source include the other in the .PCC with the proper
                EXCLUDE thingy


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Paul W. King
                ... And how is data duplication handled in PCGen? ... Not being a Code Monkey, this may be a dumb question, but: Is there a way to speed it up? Paul W. King
                Message 7 of 28 , Dec 1, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  > I think, if it's described in enough detail in whatever the source
                  > is, it needs to go into the data set so it is a true
                  > representation of the source, even if it's a duplicate of another
                  > source.

                  And how is data duplication handled in PCGen?

                  > There is no guarantee that I want to use source M just so I can use
                  > source N, and using INCLUDES & EXCLUDES (as discussed on the dev
                  > forum) causes a major slowdown in loading.

                  Not being a Code Monkey, this may be a dumb question, but: Is there
                  a way to speed it up?

                  Paul W. King
                  OGL SB and BoD
                • dlm1065
                  ... source ... use ... there ... Nope that isn t what you want. Do not use includes and excludes to prevent spell duplication. Keep the material as close to
                  Message 8 of 28 , Dec 1, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Paul W. King"
                    <paulking.rhochi@v...> wrote:
                    > > I think, if it's described in enough detail in whatever the
                    source
                    > > is, it needs to go into the data set so it is a true
                    > > representation of the source, even if it's a duplicate of another
                    > > source.
                    >
                    > And how is data duplication handled in PCGen?
                    >
                    > > There is no guarantee that I want to use source M just so I can
                    use
                    > > source N, and using INCLUDES & EXCLUDES (as discussed on the dev
                    > > forum) causes a major slowdown in loading.
                    >
                    > Not being a Code Monkey, this may be a dumb question, but: Is
                    there
                    > a way to speed it up?
                    >
                    > Paul W. King
                    > OGL SB and BoD

                    Nope that isn't what you want.
                    Do not use includes and excludes to prevent spell duplication.

                    Keep the material as close to the book as possible.

                    SCENARIO
                    What if the user hates 1 book that has it and loves another. He says
                    I'll never use this its a waste of hard drive space - delete. Your
                    dataset just got broke.

                    Spells has a way of tracking the source it comes from. The source of
                    the spell distiguishes it from the same spell under a different
                    source. Say you have two books (alpha and beta) that have spell
                    SDRAWKCABSSA. In pcgen's spell list you would see two SDRAWKCABSSA
                    spells each with their respective source.
                  • Paul Grosse
                    ... Or lets say classes, it s a perfect duplicate of the OGL class from X source made Company B used by company A in sourcebook Q. (ie Ultimate classes book by
                    Message 9 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >
                      > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > From: Paul W. King [mailto:paulking.rhochi@...]
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > What is the generally accepted practice in coding items
                      > that are found
                      > > in multiple sources?
                      > >
                      > > For example, I have Publisher A that has sources M and N.
                      > Both have
                      > > spell X in them. I have M already coded and am beginning
                      > to work on
                      > > N. When coding X, do I do an INCLUDE in the *.pcc? I seem
                      > to recall
                      > > that INCLUDE and EXCLUDE are memory style hogs...or some other such
                      > > thing.
                      > >
                      > > Paul W. King
                      > > OGL SB and BoD
                      >
                      > I think, if it's described in enough detail in whatever the
                      > source is, it needs to go into the data set so it is a true
                      > representation of the source, even if it's a duplicate of
                      > another source.
                      >
                      > There is no guarantee that I want to use source M just so I
                      > can use source N, and using INCLUDES & EXCLUDES (as discussed
                      > on the dev forum) causes a major slowdown in loading.
                      >
                      > Barak
                      > ~PCGen BoD
                      > ~OS Silverback
                      >

                      Or lets say classes, it's a perfect duplicate of the OGL class from X
                      source made Company B used by company A in sourcebook Q. (ie Ultimate
                      classes book by Mongoose) I know for a fact that if you have the same
                      class in two sources that are both loaded they double all the bonus
                      (found that out the hard way when I cad a copy of the Druid in a custom
                      file for reference and didn't comment it out).

                      Should we just NOT include items listed from other sources even though
                      it's listed in the sourcebook?
                    • Paul W. King
                      ... But I, personally, don t want duplicate spells, even if they are distinguished on the source. Is there a way then to do a: If Source A !loaded Then load
                      Message 10 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > SCENARIO
                        > What if the user hates 1 book that has it and loves another. He
                        > says I'll never use this its a waste of hard drive space - delete.
                        > Your dataset just got broke.
                        >
                        > Spells has a way of tracking the source it comes from. The source
                        > of the spell distiguishes it from the same spell under a different
                        > source. Say you have two books (alpha and beta) that have spell
                        > SDRAWKCABSSA. In pcgen's spell list you would see two SDRAWKCABSSA
                        > spells each with their respective source.

                        But I, personally, don't want duplicate spells, even if they are
                        distinguished on the source. Is there a way then to do a:

                        If Source A !loaded
                        Then load file B

                        So, if you do load Source A, then the spells are there. If you
                        don't, then you need to load file B, which will have the *known*
                        duplicate spells.

                        Paul W. King
                        OGL SB and BoD
                      • taluroniscandar
                        ... There are two underlying and dangerous assumptions here: 1. That the person writing a particular lst file knows EVERY source that has a entry with a
                        Message 11 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Paul W. King"
                          <paulking.rhochi@v...> wrote:
                          > > SCENARIO
                          > > What if the user hates 1 book that has it and loves another. He
                          > > says I'll never use this its a waste of hard drive space - delete.
                          > > Your dataset just got broke.
                          > >
                          > > Spells has a way of tracking the source it comes from. The source
                          > > of the spell distiguishes it from the same spell under a different
                          > > source. Say you have two books (alpha and beta) that have spell
                          > > SDRAWKCABSSA. In pcgen's spell list you would see two SDRAWKCABSSA
                          > > spells each with their respective source.
                          >
                          > But I, personally, don't want duplicate spells, even if they are
                          > distinguished on the source. Is there a way then to do a:
                          >
                          > If Source A !loaded
                          > Then load file B
                          >
                          > So, if you do load Source A, then the spells are there. If you
                          > don't, then you need to load file B, which will have the *known*
                          > duplicate spells.
                          >
                          There are two underlying and dangerous assumptions here:
                          1. That the person writing a particular lst file knows EVERY source
                          that has a entry with a particular name.
                          2. That every time a name is used the spells are exactly the same.

                          What if five different publishers create a spell, call it say
                          "Freebird", in five different sources. NONE of the spells work the
                          same, all five have completely different casting time, targets,
                          effects, range, etc. Lst coder alpha has one source and knows of a
                          second because a friend owns it. Lst coder beta owns product three but
                          none of the others.

                          If the spell tab overlays same name spells then only one of the
                          sources will ever work right. Which one gets precedence? How do you
                          tell PCGen to show the statistics for the spell from source three (the
                          long range, area effect Freebird) rather than the Freebird from source
                          two (touch range, one creature only version)?
                        • David
                          This may not go over well, but at some point the user *has* to know what he is loading and what is contained in the sources. There is a fundamental problem
                          Message 12 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            This may not go over well, but at some point the user *has* to know
                            what he is loading and what is contained in the sources. There is a
                            fundamental problem that things can be named the same but with
                            different details.

                            -- david

                            --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "taluroniscandar"
                            > If the spell tab overlays same name spells then only one of the
                            sources will ever work right. Which one gets precedence? How do you
                            tell PCGen to show the statistics for the spell from source three
                            (the long range, area effect Freebird) rather than the Freebird from
                            source two (touch range, one creature only version)?
                          • Paul W. King
                            ... Ah, but my scenario (which is what started this thread) was that it was the same publisher, different books. I don t see the point in recoding the *exact*
                            Message 13 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > > But I, personally, don't want duplicate spells, even if they are
                              > > distinguished on the source. Is there a way then to do a:
                              > >
                              > > If Source A !loaded
                              > > Then load file B
                              > >
                              > > So, if you do load Source A, then the spells are there. If you
                              > > don't, then you need to load file B, which will have the *known*
                              > > duplicate spells.
                              > >
                              > There are two underlying and dangerous assumptions here:
                              > 1. That the person writing a particular lst file knows EVERY source
                              > that has a entry with a particular name.
                              > 2. That every time a name is used the spells are exactly the same.
                              >
                              > What if five different publishers create a spell, call it say
                              > "Freebird", in five different sources.

                              Ah, but my scenario (which is what started this thread) was that it
                              was the same publisher, different books. I don't see the point in
                              recoding the *exact* same spells if I don't have to.

                              Paul W. King
                              OGL SB and BoD
                            • Brass Tilde
                              ... I tend to agree with the folks who say duplicate it . Even though it may the same now, it may not always be the same. In addition, someone may not have
                              Message 14 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > Ah, but my scenario (which is what started this thread) was that it
                                > was the same publisher, different books. I don't see the point in
                                > recoding the *exact* same spells if I don't have to.

                                I tend to agree with the folks who say "duplicate it". Even though it may
                                the same now, it may not always be the same. In addition, someone may not
                                have the source that includes the definition on their machine. I regularly
                                remove sources I'm not using so my players don't accidently choose something
                                they don't need, or I don't want them to have, and I can't say that I'd want
                                to have to include a source because *one* spell is shared between it and the
                                one I *do* want.

                                After all, it's not like you're actually coding it again, you can simply cut
                                and paste, right? Unless I've misunderstood something.

                                It would be a different story if the sources were conceptually linked, such
                                as a Rokugan file linking back to an OA source, but I didn't notice any
                                mention of that. If that's the case, I apologize.
                              • Paul W. King
                                ... No, just a bunch of shared domains and spells (that s all the sharing I can see atm). I just don t like duplication of items that are *exactly* the same.
                                Message 15 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > It would be a different story if the sources were conceptually
                                  > linked, such as a Rokugan file linking back to an OA source, but I
                                  > didn't notice any mention of that. If that's the case, I apologize.

                                  No, just a bunch of shared domains and spells (that's all the sharing
                                  I can see atm). I just don't like duplication of items that are
                                  *exactly* the same.

                                  Paul W. King
                                  OGL SB and BoD
                                • ovka
                                  ... So how about creating publisher_shared_spells.lst, publisher_shared_domains.lst, and having the two .pcc files point to them? Cheers, Sir George Anonymous
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Paul W. King"
                                    >No, just a bunch of shared domains and spells (that's all the
                                    >sharing
                                    >I can see atm). I just don't like duplication of items that are
                                    >*exactly* the same.

                                    So how about creating publisher_shared_spells.lst,
                                    publisher_shared_domains.lst, and having the two .pcc files point to
                                    them?

                                    Cheers,

                                    Sir George Anonymous
                                  • Chris
                                    ... A data set is supposed to represent the source. The duplicate spell is part of that source. Therefor it should be included in the .lst, not as a
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > Ah, but my scenario (which is what started this thread) was that it
                                      > was the same publisher, different books. I don't see the point in
                                      > recoding the *exact* same spells if I don't have to.

                                      A data set is supposed to represent the source.

                                      The "duplicate" spell is part of that source.

                                      Therefor it should be included in the .lst, not as a reference to
                                      another data set, even if it is from the same publisher.

                                      Not everyone is going to see things as the lst coder does, so every
                                      effort needs to be made to let the user get the most use out of the
                                      data set, even if they want to just delete half of them because they
                                      don't like them and want to clean up their drives. Linking to other
                                      data sets is just a bad idea IMO.
                                    • Paul W. King
                                      ... I agree ... No arguments ... That s where my questions began. I knew you could do INCLUDEs, but I wasn t sure how it effected the program during load. It
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > A data set is supposed to represent the source.

                                        I agree

                                        > The "duplicate" spell is part of that source.

                                        No arguments

                                        > Therefore it should be included in the .lst, not as a reference to
                                        > another data set, even if it is from the same publisher.

                                        That's where my questions began. I knew you could do INCLUDEs, but I
                                        wasn't sure how it effected the program during load. It seems that
                                        it slows it down quite a bit. *sigh* Oh well.

                                        > Not everyone is going to see things as the lst coder does, so every
                                        > effort needs to be made to let the user get the most use out of the
                                        > data set, even if they want to just delete half of them because
                                        > they don't like them and want to clean up their drives. Linking to
                                        > other data sets is just a bad idea IMO.

                                        I like the idea of linking though, only because it reduces possible
                                        redundancies. I liked the idea of creating smaller files (objects)
                                        that are used across multiple sources and just loading those. It
                                        didn't even occur to me that folks would wipe out the actual files
                                        instead of not loading them.

                                        Paul W. King
                                        OGL SB and BoD
                                      • Jayme
                                        ... This is an excellent idea and I think should be the standard way to do this type of thing. You can have multiple SPELL: and DOMAIN: lines in each .pcc
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "ovka" <lpacdavis@e...>
                                          wrote:
                                          > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Paul W. King"
                                          > >No, just a bunch of shared domains and spells (that's all the
                                          > >sharing I can see atm).
                                          > >I just don't like duplication of items that are
                                          > >*exactly* the same.
                                          >
                                          > So how about creating publisher_shared_spells.lst,
                                          > publisher_shared_domains.lst, and having the two .pcc
                                          > files point to them?

                                          This is an excellent idea and I think should be the standard way to do
                                          this type of thing. You can have multiple SPELL: and DOMAIN: lines in
                                          each .pcc file, so you could have duplicate spells in the
                                          publisher_shared_spells.lst file and if there are non-shared spells,
                                          just add them also.
                                        • Paul Grosse
                                          ... The problem is that unless you are working on a source that you KNOW is duplicated else where you wouldn t know to stick these in a certain file.
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "ovka" <lpacdavis@e...>
                                            > wrote:
                                            > > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Paul W. King"
                                            > > >No, just a bunch of shared domains and spells (that's all
                                            > the sharing
                                            > > >I can see atm).
                                            > > >I just don't like duplication of items that are
                                            > > >*exactly* the same.
                                            > >
                                            > > So how about creating publisher_shared_spells.lst,
                                            > > publisher_shared_domains.lst, and having the two .pcc files
                                            > point to
                                            > > them?
                                            >
                                            > This is an excellent idea and I think should be the standard
                                            > way to do this type of thing. You can have multiple SPELL:
                                            > and DOMAIN: lines in each .pcc file, so you could have
                                            > duplicate spells in the publisher_shared_spells.lst file and
                                            > if there are non-shared spells, just add them also.
                                            >
                                            >

                                            The problem is that unless you are working on a source that you KNOW is
                                            duplicated else where you wouldn't know to stick these in a certain
                                            file.
                                          • Michael Tucker
                                            ... That s true, Paul, but that s not the case being discussed. They re talking about situations where they *specifically* know that two sources are
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 01:37 PM, Paul Grosse wrote:
                                              > The problem is that unless you are working on a source that you KNOW is
                                              > duplicated else where you wouldn't know to stick these in a certain
                                              > file.
                                              >

                                              That's true, Paul, but that's not the case being discussed. They're
                                              talking about situations where they *specifically* know that two
                                              sources are duplicated, and how to handle that case (e.g. INCLUDE,
                                              link, copy, whatever).

                                              Regardless, if you find out later that a source is duplicated you can
                                              always move the duplicated entries to the shared file(s).

                                              Java Kensai
                                            • Paul Grosse
                                              ... But I like to plan ahead :), and I don t like doing things in a different way than has been established or utilized beforehand. Standardization rules!
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                > On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 01:37 PM, Paul Grosse wrote:
                                                > > The problem is that unless you are working on a source that
                                                > you KNOW
                                                > > is duplicated else where you wouldn't know to stick these
                                                > in a certain
                                                > > file.
                                                > >
                                                >
                                                > That's true, Paul, but that's not the case being discussed.
                                                > They're talking about situations where they *specifically*
                                                > know that two sources are duplicated, and how to handle that
                                                > case (e.g. INCLUDE, link, copy, whatever).
                                                >
                                                > Regardless, if you find out later that a source is duplicated
                                                > you can always move the duplicated entries to the shared file(s).
                                                >
                                                > Java Kensai
                                                >
                                                >

                                                But I like to plan ahead :), and I don't like doing things in a
                                                different way than has been established or utilized beforehand.
                                                Standardization rules!
                                              • Michael Tucker
                                                ... Ok, so establish a standard as follows: (a) If you know that two sources are partially duplicated, put the duplicated entries in a shared file, and include
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 01:53 PM, Paul Grosse wrote:
                                                  >> Regardless, if you find out later that a source is duplicated
                                                  >> you can always move the duplicated entries to the shared file(s).
                                                  >>
                                                  >> Java Kensai
                                                  >>
                                                  >>
                                                  >
                                                  > But I like to plan ahead :), and I don't like doing things in a
                                                  > different way than has been established or utilized beforehand.
                                                  > Standardization rules!
                                                  >

                                                  Ok, so establish a standard as follows:

                                                  (a) If you know that two sources are partially duplicated, put the
                                                  duplicated entries in a shared file, and include that shared file in
                                                  both sources' .pcc files.

                                                  (b) If you don't know, or aren't sure, then code up everything as
                                                  normal. If you find out later that there's some duplication or overlap,
                                                  fix it as in (a).

                                                  There ya go; a standard.

                                                  Flexibility rules! :-P

                                                  Java Kensai
                                                • Paul W. King
                                                  ... Standards are good, yes. However, rework should be avoided. Hence why I d like to get some OOP stuff into Lst creation...if that s at all possible. :)
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    > Standardization rules!

                                                    Standards are good, yes. However, rework should be avoided. Hence
                                                    why I'd like to get some OOP stuff into Lst creation...if that's at
                                                    all possible. :)

                                                    Paul W. King
                                                    OGL SB and BoD
                                                  • Michael Tucker
                                                    ... As opposed to oops! stuff? *grin* Java Kensai
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 01:59 PM, Paul W. King wrote:

                                                      >> Standardization rules!
                                                      >
                                                      > Standards are good, yes. However, rework should be avoided. Hence
                                                      > why I'd like to get some OOP stuff into Lst creation...if that's at
                                                      > all possible. :)
                                                      >
                                                      > Paul W. King
                                                      > OGL SB and BoD
                                                      >

                                                      As opposed to "oops!" stuff?

                                                      *grin*

                                                      Java Kensai
                                                    • Chris
                                                      ... Hehe... I ve had a few more months than you to realize the carziness people will indulge in. :p
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        > that are used across multiple sources and just loading those. It
                                                        > didn't even occur to me that folks would wipe out the actual files
                                                        > instead of not loading them.

                                                        Hehe... I've had a few more months than you to realize the carziness
                                                        people will indulge in. :p
                                                      • Mark Perneta
                                                        ... Well, I realize that this example is not OGC and therefore not TECHNICALLY the concern of PCGen (as opposed to CMP) but: The Feat Clever Wrestling is in
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          At 11:06 AM 12/2/2003 -0500, Brass Tilde wrote:
                                                          >It would be a different story if the sources were conceptually linked, such
                                                          >as a Rokugan file linking back to an OA source, but I didn't notice any
                                                          >mention of that. If that's the case, I apologize.

                                                          Well, I realize that this example is not OGC and therefore not
                                                          TECHNICALLY the concern of PCGen (as opposed to CMP) but:

                                                          The Feat "Clever Wrestling" is in both Complete Warrior and
                                                          Draconomicon. The word order is a little different between the two sources
                                                          (one lists the Size pre-reqs before the Feats, the other lists the Feat
                                                          pre-req first; the table of size-based effects is in ascending order in one
                                                          book, descending in the other) but the Feat does EXACTLY the same thing.
                                                          Is it likely that a user might have both of those books loaded at
                                                          once? Sure. When you do, you may get duplication (in this case it's just
                                                          SA: text on the character sheet, but that may not always be the case) in
                                                          the character. Just thought I'd add a specific example to the mix...

                                                          Mark.

                                                          --
                                                          The twentieth century was one in which limits on state power were
                                                          removed in order to let the intellectuals run with the ball, and they
                                                          screwed everything up and turned the century into an abattoir...
                                                          We Americans are the only ones who didn't get creamed at some point
                                                          during all of this. We are free and prosperous because we have
                                                          inherited political and value systems fabricated by a particular set
                                                          of eighteenth-century intellectuals who happened to get it right. But
                                                          we have lost touch with those intellectuals.
                                                          - Neal Stephenson
                                                        • dlm1065
                                                          Move this topic over to pcgen experimental please leave this site for helping people with lst writing
                                                          Message 28 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Move this topic over to pcgen experimental please leave this site
                                                            for helping people with lst writing
                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.