| Tyler on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:44:54 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] Ordainment + Unique Game Object Names Consultation |
Maybe the right solution is to call them "Rapiers" without giving them that Name explicitly. I mean, are all Contracts named "Contract"? Weapons shouldn't have names, they should have subcategories. Weapon:Rapier. Weapon:Well-Sharpened Pencil. Then the rule that prohibits identical names makes more sense, and we can leave it be. On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Elliott Hird < penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 > -- -Tyler _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss