Re: [s-d] Proposal: you know you want 'em

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

> I suppose that's another possibility, but transactions seemed odd
> enough that when I first introduced them that I figured I'd make their
> use explicit. But I wouldn't mind somebody proping to change that to
> be implicit, as long as there's a way to specify that you're okay with
> some parts working without others.

(I'm actually a Progress 4gl programmer in  my other life; personally
I'm USED to transaction scoping being implicit.... ::grin::)

I think it makes much more sense to make game actions implicitly
performed in sequence.  But I think that game actions should be kept
as simple as possible.  Or are we assuming that you have to be a
programmer to play bnomic?  That doesn't sound right.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss