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

RE: [PCGenListFileHelp] Re: items across multiple sources

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.