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

Re: items across multiple sources

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.