From: jlw@HEBREW.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (James Waldrop)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.lp
Subject: re: saving object pointers
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:57:30 GMT

mmcg@cs.monash.edu.au (Mike  Mc Gaughey) writes:
>>jlw@HEBREW.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (James Waldrop) writes:
>>>
>> [ stuff deleted ]
>>>Even worse, how do you handle object pointers to things that haven't
>>>logged back in yet?  Or another problem, you say only cloned objects
>>>can be saved, so you have a pointer to /std/sword#345, but when you
>>>come back it's gonna be /std/sword#22 or somesuch confusion.  Possibly
>>>if you logged all the players back in, but linkdead, and you had some
>>>way of stamping objects, but then you're getting dangerously close to
>>>recreating the conditions that probably caused the crash in the first
>>>place.
>
>You're talking shit.

If I'm talking shit, it would be nice to have that demonstrated rather
than stated.  As it is, I really have no clue exactly *why* the problems
I've outlined are 'shit', as they seem perfectly valid to me.  Shall I
just declare you to be an arrogant idiot who seems to spout hot air
more consistently than he does real information?  I think if I were to
do so, I'd have more backing me up than you do.

>beeman@cats.ucsc.edu (Adam Beeman) writes:
>>	My guess is that each object gets a lifelong identity 
>>-- not file_name -- but related to it, and there can be only one such 
>>object with that identity, ever.
>
>And so are you.
>
[from another article]
>We *have* been using this for 15 months or so, you know.
>
>Why the hell would I want to make new names of objects after a crash
>consistent with those from before the crash?

The problem I specifically asked about (see above), is how to restore
the object pointer to something that doesn't exist, and that you probably
can't find.  Further, if you have added such a method, then how do you
avoid just crashing the game again, since you've managed to recreate
most of the conditions that caused it in the first place?

>Look, guys, the situation is simple.  If you rely on string names of
>cloned objects, your code will be fucked on a reload from a savefile.

I believe I demonstrated the problems with that pretty clearly.

>What do you think object pointers are FOR?

To point to objects, can't you read Mike?  If the object isn't there,
what the hell are you going to point to?

>The ONLY reason the file_name() efun still actually returns the
>"#nnnnn" suffix for cloned objects is because it's occasionally useful
>for wiztoys.  And that's gonna disappear soon anyway - in my opinion,
>clones shouldn't _have_ unique ascii names.  There should be different
>ways of getting hold of them.

Ohhhh, such utter-fucking genius.  I say "stamp", Buddha says "unique
identity, not file name", and you say "you're full of shit, there should be
different ways of getting hold of them".

It's not arrogance to think you might have a good idea.  Arrogance is when
you choose not to listen to someone else, because your idea is so *obviously*
better, or because you had it "first".

You'd engender a lot less anger if you just answered the question, rather
than indulging in immature name-calling.  I am assuming, of course, that
you CAN answer the question, because you will have thought through this
problem, since you've been doing it for 15 months.  If instead you have
side-stepped it by throwing away your object pointers, or just cloning a
new object with a new set of variables, then that would be a useful thing
to know too, although at that point we'll all be wondering just who is
full of shit and who isn't.

Sulam
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.lp