On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:22:20PM -0500, David White wrote:
> This idea isn't nearly as sophisticated as silene's module system
> proposal some time ago, but on the other hand I think it is much easier
> to implement. The main thing it does provide is assurance against being
> unable to load the game's core WML document because a user campaign has
> an error.
>
> Any thoughts?
What striked me as most useful in silene's proposal was that another
safeguard: if a user campaign redefines a standard unit, that modified
unit would only be seen by the relevant campaign. I do not think your
"import" idea would protect us from such a case, which is probably
harder to pinpoint than a "simple" error.
That said, I still have a strong opinion that such a way of doing
things (eg. overriding a standard unit) is very bad practice, and that
eg. distinct units starting as copies of standard ones should be used
instead. Maybe we could have a safeguard against such a practice,
although I'm not sure how easy it would be to implement one.
--
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
Debian-related: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
| Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratis
http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
