Re: [s-d] [s-b] And now for something completely different

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

Sorry, I couldn't resist the comedy response.  (For extra sad points,
name the movie.)  But it does underline my point that the proposal was
very hard to understand.

In my original attributes proposal I said that an attribute was a game
object that every player got one of.  In your proposal an attribute is
a single game object and every player gets an instance which can have
a different value.  (I think that's what you are saying.)  I think
your way is much more complex and doesn't really add anything.

If every player gets a different *object* then it makes things so much
simpler.  All you need is attribute, object, value.

You're right, we don't actually need attributes.  I guess it's the
programmer in me.  I hate to see a whole bunch of rules going through
the same thing over and over - I'd rather have a "subroutine".


> Each object in the scope of an attribute has a instance of the attribute

...too complex.  Sorry.


> (which you'll probably never refer to directly). The instance is what
> holds the associated value, which needs to be in the range.

I do see what you mean, but I think it needs to be much simpler.  Sorry.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss