bd on Tue, 5 Dec 2006 14:41:14 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] whither sproingie.player?

Chuck Adams wrote:
>> [[ The rules already define all players as being, well, players. We
>> don't need a property backing that up. ]]
> Don't all objects require some sort of property defining what they
> are?  This would seem to eliminate all players, we'd all now be 'Third
> era pioneers' and there's no inheritance I can see.
> Sorry if I'm too literal-minded about objects -- I run a "codenomic"
> (pythonomic) where there can't be ambiguity, plus the nature of the
> thing makes me think in terms of OOP anyway.  So whenever I see things
> like objects, I start looking for formalisms.

"A Player is an Outsider who consents to be governed by the rules, 
fulfills all requirements for continued playerhood specified by the 
rules, and has become a Player in a manner specified by the rules."

Rule 1-4 defines exactly what things are Players, so we don't need to 
tag them explicitly...
spoon-discuss mailing list