Re: mud grammar (was Re: Just a bit of musing)

[cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA (Chris Gray)]

:On 15/03/97 at 09:39 AM, cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA (Chris Gray)
:said: >Insert big smiley here. :-) :-)
:
:>Actually the first could be a problem with the MUD server designer, in
:>insisting that all verbs be attached to objects, rather than being global
:>in the scenario.
:
:Ahh, not quite so grasshopper!

[ChrisL]
:A verb can also be attahed to a (semi-)global root object, from which damn
:near everything is Sod's little creation incenstuously inherits.  And Lo!
:There breathed upon the land global verbs!
:
:You can then add manual kick-outs to anything local that's more
:specific...
:
:>If as many verbs as possible are global verbs, then it mostly falls out
:>for free.
:
:And you end up with Baal's own creation for your local language matrix.

I don't follow your meaning here. You end up with a consistent base set
of verbs available, modified by local objects. Hopefully that local
modification is kept to a minimum, and does not violate the "spirit" of
the more global verbs. As usual, that's part of the set of conventions
for coding within the MUD.

--
Chris Gray   cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA