[MUD-Dev] Re: PDMud thread summary
alexo at bigfoot.com
Mon Oct 26 09:37:45 New Zealand Daylight Time 1998
On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 21:32:40 -0700, Chris Gray wrote:
} [Jon A. Lambert:]
} >An OO mud language needn't have any virtual tables. Virtual
} >functions and the like are C++ specific. You do have to settle on an
} >object format. Perhaps this might be a better place to start?
} >What properties do we desire a generic object to have?
} Good clarification. Lets get back to generalities.
} A generic object should have:
} - system-unique identifier of some kind (could be just a DB id).
} Likely not stored inside the object itself - no need.
} - access rights in accordance with whatever security scheme is used
} - ownership indication (if the system has an ownership concept)
} - whatever (if any) other bookkeeping info is needed in order for it
} to be actually used in the system. E.g. perhaps a refcount.
I think we should look into the object model first.
Do we want single or multiple inheritance? Static or dynamic binding? Single
or multiple dispatch? Vtables or name-based? Etc...
See my other post for personal preference.
More information about the MUD-Dev