cg at ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA
Sun May 18 10:41:55 New Zealand Standard Time 1997
:True. My intent more was to raise the general point that most MUD
:languages don't support any form of user-defined aggregate/complex types
:outside of lists. While I don't either (yet), I consider this a key
:weakness that needs addressing. I'll be satisfied when I can make a
:full-blown object a sub-member of a list, or defined internally to another
:object (nested objects), etc.
If your objects are cheap enough, you can use an object as a structure.
You can even make linked lists, graphs, etc. out of them. However, they
are never going to be as cheap as building that stuff into your language,
so if you need them enough, its worth it to add the constructs. (Gack,
I'm thinking about my own objects again, rather than the way others have
done them!) Could some of you folks summarize how you represent objects
again, just to get my mind out of its rut?
Chris Gray cg at ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA
More information about the MUD-Dev