bd on Tue, 5 Dec 2006 14:37:50 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

Chuck Adams wrote:
>> The Value of Instances of some Attribute 'A' is an Attribute with a
>> Scope of all Instances of Attribute 'A', a Range equal to the Range of
>> Attribute 'A', and a Default Value equal to the Default Value of
>> Attribute 'A'.
> Argle bargle floop?  I can't figure out what the heck this means.

It's basically making the Value of an Attribute itself an Attribute... a 
bit of unnecessary self-reference, but fun :D

>> [[ Actually, do we need to define properties and attributes? It seems
>> there wasn't an explicit definition in the First Era... ]]
> Something needs to unify Property and Attribute, or at least
> distinguish them.  A Property would seem to be either a degenerate
> case of an Attribute (with itself as its Range), or an Attribute could
> be considered a Property with additional data bound to it.  Or the
> list of an object's Properties might be simply contained within an
> Attribute.

I think of properties as more of a "tag" in Web 2.0-speak. Since there 
can be arbitrary tags which might not be defined in the rules, an 
attribute isn't totally appropriate. We could add a Properties Attribute 
to Game Objects though, if you like, but that may be overkill.

> Right now, Property seems to be an indicator of an object's class
> (e.g. "all Objects possessing the Property of 'Player' shall possess
> the following attributes").  I guess it's just an opaque tag, which I
> kind of like, since you could have rules that extend it like "All
> objects possessing any Property with a name having a prime number of
> letters above 7" (or not).

Players are already identified as such by the rules; the Player property 
is really kind of redundant; see my other message for a prop to clear 
that up a bit.

> I'd propose some Grand Unified Object Schema Definition, but it seems
> a bit ambitious for a newb :)

Ambition never killed anyone. >.>


Okay, well, it's killed quite a few people, but I assure you that it 
will not be the case this time.
spoon-discuss mailing list