Jack Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> struct room{
> ...
> struct player * players;
> ...
> };
>
> struct player{
> ...
> struct room * room;
> ...
> };
Extreme programming (or maybe it was some other "agile" thingy)
suggests doing the simplest possible approach that could conceiva
On Dec 16, 2007 1:45 PM, Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This needs to stand up to concurrent modification of a shared world
> > structure, but I think I'll set up the concurrency controls after I get
> > my head around this.t
> The simplest way to do this is to bundle all your big shared
Jules Bean wrote:
Jack Kelly wrote: -snip-
Essentially you have to choose some form of identity (relational DB fans
might call it a "key") for your players and rooms. My gut feeling is
that String will do fine; it's nice for debugging, gives rise to a
natural way to write your admin commands
Jack Kelly wrote:
struct room{
...
struct player * players;
...
};
struct player{
...
struct room * room;
...
};
From what I can see, I'd use a record type for players and rooms, but
I'm not sure how to replicate the pointer effects:
Essentially you have to choose some form of
Hi,
I've been thinking about two things for some time now:
1. Sharpening my haskell
2. Implementing a MUD server
I've been thinking about doing (1) and (2) at the same time but I've run
into some problems with data structures.
I need to be able to get a list of players from a room (for things
