[374] in Coldmud discussion meeting
Re: Changes (0.10-4)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mon Jul 11 01:08:42 1994
)
From: BRANDON@cc.usu.edu
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 1994 23:03:22 -0600 (MDT)
To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
X-Vms-To: COLDSTUFF
Richelieu spaketh:
<> set_name() => set_objname()
<> del_name() => del_objname()
<> get_name() => get_objnum()
<
< Umm, I thought those were going to become set_dbref(), etc.. and why is
< get_name becoming get_objnum when all the others use "objname"? Or is get_name
< really a different function than I'm assuming here and not related to the
< others?
Crag suggested objname in place of objnum because it makes even more sense:
Object Number | vs | Object Number
Object Name | | Database Reference
It sounded fine to me...
As for get_objnum, that is what the function does (i.e. it gets the objnum of
'objname).
Jeff T.P. chiseled:
<> dict_add_elem()
<> dict_del_elem() => remove (since they are disappearing anyway)
<
< I know I have very important code that uses both of these extensively.
< I'd like to have them left in personally. I know it can be done in db,
< but how quickly? Speed again is the consideration. If it can be done in
< the database without considerable loss of speed, then nevermind. . .
Well, I have not used the *_elem methods much, because I couldn't see much of a
difference between dict_add/del, other than a slight more touch of detail for
what is going on. However, the more I consider this the more I think it may be
a good idea to leave it in, because sometimes that higher level of detail is
wanted and there really ISNT a pressing reason to rip them out (is there
Greg?).
(BTW, with W3 pages. you can leave them in ftp://www.usu.edu/incoming and just
drop me an email message)
(oh, BTW BTW, they are giving me and the other W3 admin an alpha400 (muahaha))
/\ Brandon Gillespie <a href="http://www.usu.edu/~brandon/">me</a> /\
() An Interactive RFC Index: http://www.usu.edu/~brandon/RFC/ ()
\/ "Luke, at that speed do you think you'll be able to pull out in time?" \/