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

Re: [Devon][CODE] [FREQ] p7+ trackers - 10/31/04

Expand Messages
  • taluroniscandar
    ... see a ... linking ... able ... *have* to ... This is ... I agree, TYPE as a function can t be removed. What about changing TYPE in items to ITEMTYPE (or
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, Devon Jones <soulcatcher@e...> wrote:
      > Stefan Radermacher wrote:
      >
      > >√Čric Beaudoin wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >>For the record, Tir talks for all the senior data monkeys on this
      > >>issue. Any functionality linked to a TYPE (especially the hardcoded
      > >>ones) should be seen as Evil(tm).
      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > >Currently the way PCGen chooses which kind of equipment gets listed in
      > >the chooses for free clothing ist by looking at the TYPE, it lists all
      > >equiupment witht the TYPE "Clothing.Resizable", and I don't really
      see a
      > >way to do something like that differently currently.
      > >
      > >Also, I'm wondering, what good is the TYPE qualifier if not for
      linking
      > >functionality to it? How else is the program supposed to differentiate
      > >between different kinds of equipment items? How else would PCGen be
      able
      > >to know that you can't use a lantern as a weapon or a sword as armor?
      > >
      > >Stefan.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > I have to weigh in here, and say that I agree with Stefan. We
      *have* to
      > refer to specific types in code, otherwise there is no way for us to
      > know how this stuff can affect anything.
      >
      > Sorry, it may be ugly, but there really is no other viable way.
      This is
      > what TYPE is *for*
      >
      > I am btw open to other suggestions, but really, any suggestion needs to
      > include eliminating TYPE, because that is it's primary code function -
      > to be a filter on items or other things for the code.

      I agree, TYPE as a function can't be removed.

      What about changing TYPE in items to ITEMTYPE (or some such), TYPE in
      feats to FEATTYPE, TYPE in classes to CLASSTYPE, etc, etc.

      Would solve both problems (but have alot of up front costs).
    • Devon Jones
      ... While I understand, if the solution involves 5 lines for a new type or 500 (or more) to do it another way, sometimes this means that a new hardcoded type
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Tir Gwaith wrote:

        >Do you realize HOW MANY Types there are in Equipment? And while many are
        >there for users ability to select items, many are there clogging it up for a
        >single obscure purpose. I small rule (that groups I've played with have
        >always ignored) in the RSRD that will require another TYPE, with potentially
        >another hard-code specific TYPE, is something I really don't want to go
        >into. I'd like another solution than just throwing everything and the
        >kitchen sink into TYPE tags.
        >
        >I have SERIOUS reservations about endorsing another hard-coded (even in
        >GameMode) TYPE to equipment.
        >
        >The other problem we have is that the object's TYPE tag is not used the same
        >across all files. Or even the same way all the time in the same file. It
        >is like the "Catch-all" drawer in my kitchen.
        >
        >Tir Gwaith
        >LST Chimp
        >
        >
        While I understand, if the solution involves 5 lines for a new type or
        500 (or more) to do it another way, sometimes this means that a new
        hardcoded type is the lesser of two evils. I'll look into the issue
        that spawned this some time later and see if there is a creative way to
        solve it without a type.

        Devon
      • Eddy Anthony
        ... I think the desire is to keep these sort of features out of the code (which are not readable to us non-programmer simians) and have it as much in the LST
        Message 3 of 13 , Nov 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Devon Jones scribed:

          > While I understand, if the solution involves 5 lines for a new type or
          > 500 (or more) to do it another way, sometimes this means that a new
          > hardcoded type is the lesser of two evils. I'll look into the issue
          > that spawned this some time later and see if there is a creative way to
          > solve it without a type.
          >
          > Devon

          I think the desire is to keep these sort of features out of the code (which
          are not readable to us non-programmer simians) and have it as much in the
          LST files as possible. Point of fact, this feature can be done with one
          existing tag right now, check it out:

          ADD:EQUIP(Outfit (Artisan's),Outfit (Entertainer's),Outfit
          (Explorer's),Outfit (Monk's),Outfit (Peasant's),Outfit (Scholar's),Outfit
          (Traveler's))1

          The thing we can't do in a dataset is easily attach something like this to
          every character created. The only way I know to effect any all characters is
          to add stuff into the stats and checks file of the gameMode and that is
          really only good for defining variables and adding bonuses.

          So what about this, we create a way to add feats to all characters created
          with the dataset loaded. We can create a .pcc tag for this, FEATALL: would
          point to a file of feats. The feats would all be applied to the character
          after a race was chosen and the first class was selected. PRExxx tags could
          be used in the feats and only those that the PC qualified for would be
          added. So in this case we could have a hidden starting cloths feat with a
          PRERULE (do we have a PRERULE tag?) and the tag listed above. It would
          behave exactly as it does now but would only include the correct choices.
          Best of all it there in the LST files for all to see.

          I have seen the request for a way to add stuff to all characters come up so
          I know there are many uses this could be applied to, I have a few in mind
          for Spycraft.
          --
          ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
          ~ PCGen Content Silverback
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.