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

Re: [pcgen_developers] Re: Dynamic behavior in Facets - Input Request

Expand Messages
  • Andrew
    Hi, I ve spoken with Tom. As long as we can get the correct results, I m willing to change the data to improve the code. I ve already started on that with the
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 17, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      I've spoken with Tom. As long as we can get the correct results, I'm willing to change the data to improve the code. I've already started on that with the lycanthrope code which exposed that
      a) The correct answer wasn't happening
      b) We can get the correct answer using more stable code (Simple is good)
      c) We had broken code that was discovered (TEMPLATE:CHOOSE:)

      Looks like in some cases we'll need a new tag to handle things.

      On 1/17/2013 5:55 PM, thpr wrote:
      I have investigated Option #3 further, and have some ideas on how it might work and not be too painful to implement.
      
      There is however, one problem... a rather major problem.
      
      The current structure of bonuses is exported to data and OS, meaning that the existing syntax and structure must be maintained. 
      
      Anyone wishing to understand that in more detail can look at my recent post on _exp:
      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen_experimental/message/15514
      
      I have requested the ability to remove those functions so that the BONUS system is no longer exposed in Data/OS.. which will allow us to change the system per option #3 in this thread.
      
      TP.
      
      --- In pcgen_developers@yahoogroups.com, James Dempsey  wrote:
      
      Hi Tom.
      
      Looking at the patch for option 1, it is pretty understandable and gets 
      the job done. I can understand the concern at having both global state 
      and per character state though. I don't think it is violating the Spring 
      approach, as this is linking that cannot be done statically. Overall it 
      is pretty self contained and with the addition of a few comments 
      wouldn't be hard to maintain.
      
      On option 2 I agree with Andrew - it doesn't sound good. Option 4 sounds 
      like a more complex version of #1 and I would prefer #1.
      
      Option 3 sounds the best and we will get extra benefits from having the 
      bonuses more finely accessible. However it is a lot of work!
      
      Cheers,
      James.
      
      
      
      
      ------------------------------------
      
      Yahoo! Groups Links
      
      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen_developers/
      
      <*> Your email settings:
          Individual Email | Traditional
      
      <*> To change settings online go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen_developers/join
          (Yahoo! ID required)
      
      <*> To change settings via email:
          pcgen_developers-digest@yahoogroups.com 
          pcgen_developers-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
      
      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          pcgen_developers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      
      
      

      --
      Andrew Maitland (LegacyKing)
      Admin Silverback - PCGen Board of Directors
      Data 2nd, Docs Tamarin, OS Lemur
      Unique Title "Quick-Silverback Tracker Monkey"
      Unique Title "The Torturer of PCGen"
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.