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

[bd <nomic@xxxxxxx>]

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
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss