Re: [s-d] [s-b] Ordainment + Unique Game Object Names Consultation

[Elliott Hird <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 22 Jan 2009, at 21:47, Jamie Dallaire wrote:

> BTW, I'm thinking the best resolution to the problem I laid out  
> below (if
> you agree it's a problem) would be to get rid of the piece of 4E42  
> that says
> a game object can't come to have the same name as another game  
> object, and
> simply rely on individual restrictions where they are needed. e.g. as
> already exist for player name changes or for submitting contracts.
>
> It really doesn't matter if two weapons have the same name, I think  
> (as long
> as we're clear about usage permissions based on ownership)

Yikes, your arguments are convincing.

BUT repealing that part of 5E42 (you went back an era there :P) is  
probably
the wrong solution: let's just narrow it down to only certain types.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss