OpenEuphoria

Re: question that might not have an answer

• Posted by Isaac Raway <isaac-topica at blueapples.org> Jan 12, 2004
• 611 views

I don't know that Euphoria is the best language to use internally in a 
MUD. MUDs are very heavily object (but not necessarily class) oriented, 
and MUD programmers are accustomed to address a property of an object 
and not an index in a sequence, etc.

Euphoria is a good language, don't get me wrong, but also I'm afraid 
that it might not be the best fit for world building.

Oh, and by the way, I was one of those who was interested in helping 
out. Email: isaac at blueapples dot org

~ Isaac




Michelle Rogers wrote:

>
>
>I have a question.  On the mud I am working on, I have a list of mudcommands
>that can be done in a data file.  They read into a commands variable, which
>looks like this..
>
>commands={command,command,command...}
>command={{name of command},{function command should run when typed},{level
>player must be to use command}}
>
>
>I would like for mud-"coders" to be able to add commands "on the fly" from
>inside the mud.  I can handle the actual adding of the command easy
>enough...on one line, they would simply type:
>
>addcommand <command> <function> <levelreq>
>
>But here's my question.  The functions are referenced by routine_id .  When
>any command is typed, the program searches for the command in the data file,
>then if found calls the procedure in the 2nd element of that command
>sequence by using a routine_id.  So, the functions for the commands are of
>course stored within a file..umm...something like commands.e
>
>So, here's the problem.  Coders could physically add the command...but is
>there a way to add the function into the .e file from inside the program?  I
>THOUGHT about...reading in the entire commands.e file as regular data,
>adding the new function to the end as regular data, then saving it again.
>First of all, will this even work?  But, secondly, how would you force the
>program to re-read that file while it's already running?  I already thought
>of the "easy" fix and tried to make a "compile" command from inside the mud
>that simply includes the file again.  But, apparently we can't put include
>statements inside procedure/functions?  That seemed to be the error I was
>getting.  Or, am I wrong about that and there was something else wrong?
>
>Or, perhaps I just want to do the impossible?  But surely, there's some way?
>
>Michelle Rogers
>
>
>
>TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>