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

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

> Under the revised version at least, every player who needs one  *does* get a
> different object. I think Instances would have had to have been Game Objects
> in the first version anyway, since we don't really have a way to talk about
> non-Game Objects at all. But I think it's much nicer to not force everyone
> to have an attribute; so scope is good. Not really sure what's so
> complicated about this method.


I agree that we should allow attributes to be possessed by things
other than players, or by subsets of players, or by supersets of
players and things.

Maybe all the proposal needs is to spend a bit more time defining it's
terms?  And to avoid using three layers of indirection - "the element
of the scope of the object" - which is acceptable in a computer
language, but in English is pretty confusing.  At least for me.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss