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

Re: Feature Ideas

Expand Messages
  • mocha@mcs.net
    I said DESCRIPTION tag, not DESCRIPTOR. :) I can see how you d be confused. DESCRIPTION is a tag I want to make work for all objects. the DESCRIPTOR tag is
    Message 1 of 19 , Feb 28, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I said DESCRIPTION tag, not DESCRIPTOR. :) I can see how you'd be
      confused.
      DESCRIPTION is a tag I want to make work for all objects. the
      DESCRIPTOR tag is intended to be kind of an alternate-school
      capability for spells. If you don't want to use it this way, and
      since (I think, anyway, I'd have to check to be sure) you can output
      the DESCRIPTOR tag for spells, you haven't wasted your time.
      So, yes, the DESCRIPTOR tag is working (at least I haven't heard that
      it isn't...)

      -Bryan

      --- In pcgen@y..., zebuleon@p... wrote:
      > --- In pcgen@y..., mocha@m... wrote:
      > > I think what has been suggested is using the effect-type tag
      unless
      > > (or until...) I add in a hook where you can put descriptions in a
      > > file of your choosing and grab the descriptions from there and
      dump
      > > it out with a DESCRIPTION tag.
      > >
      > > -Bryan
      > >
      > I don't understand, I thought the DESCRIPTOR tag was working, was
      it a
      > waste for me to go through and add all those tags to the spells if
      > your not going to use them? I'm not mad or anything but you should
      > have told me to put them in the effect_type spot instead.
      >
      > For the R&R spells should I move the descriptor information to the
      > effect_type spot or leave it with the Descriptor tag?
      >
      > Mario
    • zebuleon@peoplepc.com
      oh, shows what I know huh? :) Thanks Mario ... that ... a
      Message 2 of 19 , Feb 28, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        oh, shows what I know huh? :)

        Thanks
        Mario
        --- In pcgen@y..., mocha@m... wrote:
        > I said DESCRIPTION tag, not DESCRIPTOR. :) I can see how you'd be
        > confused.
        > DESCRIPTION is a tag I want to make work for all objects. the
        > DESCRIPTOR tag is intended to be kind of an alternate-school
        > capability for spells. If you don't want to use it this way, and
        > since (I think, anyway, I'd have to check to be sure) you can output
        > the DESCRIPTOR tag for spells, you haven't wasted your time.
        > So, yes, the DESCRIPTOR tag is working (at least I haven't heard
        that
        > it isn't...)
        >
        > -Bryan
        >
        > --- In pcgen@y..., zebuleon@p... wrote:
        > > --- In pcgen@y..., mocha@m... wrote:
        > > > I think what has been suggested is using the effect-type tag
        > unless
        > > > (or until...) I add in a hook where you can put descriptions in
        a
        > > > file of your choosing and grab the descriptions from there and
        > dump
        > > > it out with a DESCRIPTION tag.
        > > >
        > > > -Bryan
        > > >
        > > I don't understand, I thought the DESCRIPTOR tag was working, was
        > it a
        > > waste for me to go through and add all those tags to the spells if
        > > your not going to use them? I'm not mad or anything but you should
        > > have told me to put them in the effect_type spot instead.
        > >
        > > For the R&R spells should I move the descriptor information to the
        > > effect_type spot or leave it with the Descriptor tag?
        > >
        > > Mario
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.