#tfl@irc.freenode.net logs for 28 Oct 2006 (GMT)

Archive Today Yesterday Tomorrow
tfl homepage


[00:23:32] --- Marzo is now known as Marzo_away
[01:10:00] --- wiz_away is now known as wizardrydragon
[01:15:37] --- Marzo_away is now known as Marzo
[01:15:46] <Marzo> Hi
[01:15:48] <Marzo> brb
[01:15:53] <wizardrydragon> :P
[01:18:53] <Marzo> back
[01:18:58] <wizardrydragon> woot
[01:19:07] <Marzo> :-)
[01:19:35] <wizardrydragon> have fun? :P
[01:20:42] <Marzo> Methinks that there is something missing in that sentence :-)
[01:20:56] <wizardrydragon> :P
[01:22:17] <wizardrydragon> I had a few more thoughts about the spell system
[01:22:26] <Marzo> Oh?
[01:22:55] <wizardrydragon> Yes :P
[01:23:20] <Marzo> Could you elaborate or am I going to have to beg? :-p
[01:23:34] <wizardrydragon> Lol
[01:24:25] <wizardrydragon> Mostly just bouncing it around in my head and fleshing out details.
[01:25:06] <wizardrydragon> As you may recall, I mentioned my concept (naturallhy) having "requirements". I decided that this could have a few different implications.
[01:25:36] <wizardrydragon> Firstly, and most obviously, most spells (all of the original ones IIRC) require some amount of mana to cast.
[01:26:05] <Marzo> Not all of them, but close enough :-)
[01:26:41] <wizardrydragon> Secondly, all non-linear spells require reagents - material components. In the most basic form, it requires objects.
[01:27:26] <Marzo> More specifically, so far they all require reagents which are different frames of a given shape
[01:27:57] <wizardrydragon> Thirdly, more powerful ritual spells (such as those of Zauriel or Laurianna, perhaps) could require the expendiature, temporary or otherwise, of other character attributes. (Very sresonably, such powerful spells could drain their strength and endurance when cast.)
[01:28:28] <Marzo> An existing example is Mass Death spell
[01:28:42] <Marzo> Maybe having Mass Resurrect be similarly draining too?
[01:29:14] <wizardrydragon> Fourth, a final requirement for all spells is a focus. For the Avatar and (implicitly) NPC spellcasters, it is a spellbook. For companions, it is the appropriate spellcasting device.
[01:29:50] <Marzo> Right
[01:30:13] <Marzo> You are missing the spell ritual
[01:32:25] <wizardrydragon> To clarify what I explained earlier based on this: I structured it as thus: a call to determine if the caster has the requirements, a call to see if the Avatar is successful in casting, if the Avatar is successful, a call to the ritual, then a call to the spell effects. The cleanup at the end of the spell would consume the appropriate resources and set in motion any appropriate duration timers.
[01:33:47] <Marzo> I would have the comsumption of resources be done immediatelly after the determination of requirements
[01:34:07] <wizardrydragon> Why?
[01:34:12] <Marzo> After all, it stands to reason that reagents and mana should be destroyed even if the casting fails
[01:34:39] <wizardrydragon> Some things that may prevent casting shouldnt consume the reagents, however.
[01:34:50] <wizardrydragon> An invalid target, for example.
[01:34:51] <Marzo> Such as?
[01:35:05] <Marzo> I disagree
[01:35:33] <Marzo> If the NPC tries to cast a spell at the wrong target, causing it to fail, he has cast the spell
[01:35:41] <Marzo> It just happened to fail
[01:36:22] <Marzo> I could live with a zone of silence (or similar) preventing the casting, but that is another matter
[01:39:47] <wizardrydragon> *cough* tetrashedon *cough*
[01:40:01] <wizardrydragon> (Wonders if he remembers the right geometric shape)
[01:40:01] <Marzo> Same deal
[01:40:15] <wizardrydragon> Inside it you should not be able to cast spells period.
[01:40:31] <wizardrydragon> You're essential in an area of nospace, as far as the ether is concerned :P
[01:41:27] <Marzo> That could fall in 'determining if caster met requirements' -- presumably, being able to speak and having access to the Ether are requirements worth checking :-)
[01:42:13] <wizardrydragon> Er, that would be in "Is the Avatar successful in casting the spell?" as the fundamental factor in that is "Is the Avatar able to cast the spell?"
[01:43:18] <Marzo> I am classifying access to the Ether and being able to speak in the same cathegory as having enough mana and reagents -- this prevents casting a priori
[01:44:01] <Marzo> Being in a magic storm or selecting the wrong target would be a posteriori determinations that cause the spell to fail
[01:44:21] <Marzo> But maybe I wasn't very clear about this when I expressed myself earlier...
[01:46:23] <wizardrydragon> determine if able to cast spell:
[01:46:23] <wizardrydragon> if avatar can cast spells
[01:46:24] <wizardrydragon> {
[01:46:26] <wizardrydragon> if generator is not destroyed
[01:46:28] <wizardrydragon> random chance to fail
[01:46:30] <wizardrydragon> if avatar is in generator or is in nospace (TFL plot bit there ;) ) or avatar is unconscious or avatar is paralyzed
[01:46:33] <wizardrydragon> automatic failure
[01:46:35] <wizardrydragon> if avatar is cursed
[01:46:37] <wizardrydragon> reduced casting chance
[01:46:39] <wizardrydragon> if avatar is silenced
[01:46:41] <wizardrydragon> half casting chance; automatic failure for BG/SI spells
[01:46:43] <wizardrydragon> else
[01:46:45] <wizardrydragon> normal chance of casting
[01:46:49] <wizardrydragon> if automatic failure then spell fails
[01:46:51] <wizardrydragon> otherwise randomize success normally according to modified chance of success
[01:48:43] <Marzo> You are adding a random element to spell casting, I see
[01:49:13] <wizardrydragon> Yes. You shouldn't have automatic success (except perhaps in certain circumstances)
[01:49:23] <wizardrydragon> IMHO
[01:49:43] <Marzo> I agree with that, but I don't think it fits well in Ultima
[01:49:56] <Marzo> (given that there are no precedents for it)
[01:50:03] <Marzo> IMHO, of course
[01:50:33] <wizardrydragon> Well I don't think failure should happen often, but there shouldn't be 100% success either.
[01:50:41] * wizardrydragon wonders if he dares mention Ultima IX.
[01:50:58] <Marzo> I would think that it should depend in the Magic skill
[01:51:19] * Marzo looks puzzled at wizardrydragon -- there *is* no Ultima IX
[01:51:42] * wizardrydragon was referring to Ascension. Leave him alone, he hasn't had his medication yet.
[01:52:02] <wizardrydragon> I agree with that; however, it would jhust be a modifier to the spell success chance.
[01:52:51] <wizardrydragon> The idea on my part is: in a high magic world like Ultima, anyone should be able to *try* casting magic, but only a practiced mage would be able to cast spells reliably, consistently
[01:53:30] <Marzo> Well, at least for the Keyring mod, I won't be back-porting the spell failure chance -- there is too much departure from the original already, and a lot more to come in different fronts
[01:53:48] <wizardrydragon> Also, the Book of the Fellowship mentions the possibility of a backlash, i want to add that as a balancing factor to powerful spells like the Death spells, and also perhaps Zauriels and Laurianna's ritual magic as well.
[01:53:51] <Marzo> That is a good idea, actually
[01:54:38] <wizardrydragon> So it's not neccesarily - "does the spell cast?" but "did the spell cast completely, with all the effects happeneing, and no blowing myself up?"
[01:54:47] <Marzo> In my Ultima P&P game (which is yet to start), I am including that in a way that would be difficult to do in Exult -- or in any computer game for that matter
[01:55:03] <wizardrydragon> Howso?
[01:55:42] <Marzo> Each profession will have some magical knowledge -- secrets of the trade, if you will -- that allows them to craft some magical effects into what they do
[01:56:18] <Marzo> For example, some blacksmithing techniques that allow a blacksmith to forge magical weapons without having to ba a mage
[01:56:21] <wizardrydragon> That's what I'm trying to work in.
[01:56:39] <wizardrydragon> (And THAT's why I think Tinkers should have some magical ability :) )
[01:56:46] <Marzo> And that is what is going to be hard :-)
[01:56:58] <wizardrydragon> Not neccesarily.
[01:57:17] <wizardrydragon> Not if we just use kludges like the spellweapons the U7 devs used :D
[01:57:26] <Marzo> :-)
[01:58:26] <wizardrydragon> To do it in a more "honest" way, though, it's not so much diffiecult as it would be time-consuming :)
[01:59:11] <Marzo> Not to mention requiring the shape limit to be extended all the way past 65536 and 32-bit usecode addressing :-p
[01:59:57] <wizardrydragon> Not really.
[02:00:27] <wizardrydragon> You could do it with everything as it exists now, except of course, the usecode and dialogue contained therein.
[02:00:46] <wizardrydragon> We'd just be talking about a usecode file bigger than the Exult executable :)
[02:01:03] <Marzo> :-)
[02:01:03] <wizardrydragon> (Which is probably going to be the case if/when TFL is done, anyways :) )
[02:01:46] <Marzo> TFL would have to have about 10x as much usecode as it does now for that to happen
[02:02:01] <wizardrydragon> Yep.
[02:02:02] <Marzo> Not saying that it won't happen, it is just going to be difficult :-)
[02:02:35] <wizardrydragon> Come now, we both are quite well schooled in how things snowball by now to see it wouldn't be that hard :)
[02:02:58] <Marzo> :-)
[02:03:51] <wizardrydragon> Just the spellsystem alone is going to end up about three times as big when I'm done with it, and that's just what I'm planning now ;)
[02:04:09] <Marzo> Not to mention what I am planning too...
[02:04:10] <wizardrydragon> (Usecode-wise)
[02:04:32] <wizardrydragon> Multiply that by the (ritual spells + SI spells + TFL spells)
[02:04:33] <wizardrydragon> :)
[02:05:37] <Marzo> But see, this is the disadvantage of you not commiting more often -- there are many things I'd like to do, and a lot of things we could to in concert, but which would likely just be duplicated effort (or worse, mutually incompatible effort)
[02:05:50] * Marzo ducks
[02:05:57] <wizardrydragon> At this point, I'm not making many actual changes to anything you'd be working on anyways.
[02:06:25] <Marzo> What are you changing, specifically?
[02:06:27] <wizardrydragon> I've been working real hard to try to get all the concepts I have committed somewhat before I code any further. A "roadmap" of sorts, if yhou will.
[02:06:37] <wizardrydragon> The Housing System, mostly.
[02:08:40] <wizardrydragon> I just found that I kept going back and masking dramatic changes so often that it was perhaps better to sit and conceptualize things better before moving on.
[02:08:46] <Marzo> I will see about finishing the latest changes to UCC and commiting them and then I'll work in the spell rituals then
[02:09:26] <wizardrydragon> I did have one thought on the rituals.
[02:09:42] <Marzo> (it will be boring, cut & paste job, but someone has got to do it...)
[02:09:46] <Marzo> Shoot
[02:10:28] <wizardrydragon> Specifially, rituals seem to break down into three components: verbal (the spoken word), somatic (gestures and actions), and mental (the strong discipline required to cast)
[02:11:07] <Marzo> Since we are talking about gargish, 'verbal' and 'somatic' isn't a good distinction
[02:11:23] <wizardrydragon> You understand my intent :P
[02:11:35] <Marzo> :-)
[02:11:52] <wizardrydragon> A spell may not require all, so be careful not to hardwire all three as requirements
[02:12:33] <wizardrydragon> For example, take a mage that designs a spell to cure paralysis. obviously, this would be a useless spell if it had gestures as a requirement, being paralyzed and all.
[02:12:33] <Marzo> I am unsure; a caster well-versed in gargish might use the written-gargish suffixes as a substitute for the gestures
[02:13:45] <Marzo> (that would be gargoyles -- the winged ones -- which aren't affraid to mangle the language in the name or survival, the Avatar and LB)
[02:14:31] <wizardrydragon> Next you're going to suggest gargoyle spellcasters use "to" as a prefix to all their spell incantations :P
[02:14:46] <Marzo> (and yes -- I know that this adds yet more layers to the giant snowball we are already facing :-p)
[02:15:02] <Marzo> Nah, that would mangle their language too much :-)
[02:15:15] <wizardrydragon> For us, this isn't really snowballing. Give it a few more thoughts :)
[02:15:50] <Marzo> Oh, so you weren't serious about the in-game spell creation system we discussed earlier? *shocked*
[02:15:59] <Marzo> :-)
[02:16:02] <wizardrydragon> Lol
[02:16:22] <wizardrydragon> No, the snowballing part of that reached critical mass whenh we got to the text input function :)
[02:16:44] <Marzo> That would actually be easy
[02:17:04] <wizardrydragon> Yep, but it was that 0.1 that got the snowbhall over the top of the hill
[02:17:15] <Marzo> :-)
[02:17:32] <Marzo> Given what we were discussing, I'd say 0.00000000001
[02:18:39] <wizardrydragon> It was enough, nonetheless :)
[02:18:45] <Marzo> I added it to my Ever-Growing List Of Planned Things Which Will Likely Take Forever And A Day To Be Implemented (aka, my 'to-do' list)
[02:19:03] <wizardrydragon> Only Forever-And-A-Day? Optimistic lad.
[02:19:16] <wizardrydragon> (BTW, compound modifiers need hyphens.
[02:19:27] <wizardrydragon> :P
[02:19:31] <Marzo> :-)
[02:20:32] <wizardrydragon> Actually though, a text input function should get a little bit of priority, because it has a lot of potential to have universal utility.
[02:20:42] <Marzo> True
[02:21:27] <Marzo> So does the graphic gump and the new display map intrisics, as well as frame names, but it doesn't make me any more likely to implement them quickly :-)
[02:21:46] <Marzo> And also de-hardcoding the handling of spells
[02:21:48] <wizardrydragon> Display map intrinsics?
[02:22:05] * wizardrydragon tilts head inquisitively.
[02:22:23] <Marzo> Yeah; for displaying, well, maps on screen -- such as the TFL map when it is done
[02:22:37] <Marzo> (and not the minimap, but the in-game 'cloth' map)
[02:23:55] <wizardrydragon> Ah. Yes, that too would be useful.
[02:24:15] <Marzo> By the way: I have added support in UCC for multiple strings in a given converse case
[02:24:28] <Marzo> This eliminates two functions in Reyna's usecode
[02:24:45] <wizardrydragon> Hmm. I don't know how much use for me, but it does help rebuilding some BG convos.
[02:25:11] <Marzo> Preciselly why I did it :-)
[02:25:17] <wizardrydragon> Hehe
[02:26:55] <wizardrydragon> So am I correct in assuming it'd just be case "blah" "blah blah":
[02:27:01] <Marzo> And linked to that: I have also made each case be in its own scope, so that variables declared in one case aren't automatically available in all subsequent cases -- meaning you can declare variables with the same names in different cases without compile problems
[02:27:13] <Marzo> Separeted with commas:
[02:27:22] <wizardrydragon> Ew, that could lead to code cleanliness problems.
[02:27:25] <Marzo> case "blah", "blahblah":
[02:27:52] <Marzo> How so?
[02:27:57] * wizardrydragon watches code readibility take a nosedive.
[02:28:09] <Marzo> About the commas or about the scopes?
[02:28:14] <wizardrydragon> Scopes :P
[02:28:26] * wizardrydragon isn't allergic to commas as some people seem to think.
[02:28:48] <Marzo> Don't worry -- variables declared before the converse cases are still valid throughout all cases
[02:29:14] <Marzo> It is just that if you declared a variable in one case, it would be available in all subsequent cases
[02:29:20] <Marzo> And I didn't like that
[02:29:27] * wizardrydragon is referring to the confusion factor if variables are used with same names for different things, especially when they are very similar things with deceptive caveats.
[02:29:51] <Marzo> Ah, but if they are declared again in each case it becomes clearer
[02:30:11] <Marzo> Because, well, you see the declaration
[02:30:42] <Marzo> And having each case be in an independent scope makes more sense to me
[02:30:48] <wizardrydragon> It doesn't make the caveats obvious. Either way, if you use good coding practices it's irrelevant, thing is, it gives a lot of potential for abuse :)
[02:31:11] * wizardrydragon reminds Marzo that he's coding here too.,
[02:31:19] <Marzo> :-)
[02:32:15] <Marzo> Well, in any case it has a definite advantage: if you need a var to be available in multiple cases, you should declare it before the converve block
[02:33:04] <wizardrydragon> I fail to grasp the advantage.
[02:33:10] <Marzo> As it were, you could declare a var in one case and use it in another, which is worse, IMO, than the present alternatice
[02:33:42] <Marzo> The advantage is that it enforces good coding practices :-)
[02:33:43] <wizardrydragon> After all, if you're using it in more than one case you've declared it outside of the block if you're at all capable of intelligent thought.
[02:34:48] <Marzo> Ah, but we can't assume that the person writing usecode is capable of intelligent thought, can we? :-p
[02:35:48] * wizardrydragon reminds Marzo again that he is writing code, too.
[02:36:01] <Marzo> Preciselly my point :-)
[02:36:04] * Marzo ducks
[02:37:08] * wizardrydragon sheeps.
[02:37:52] * wizardrydragon also hears the noise of a million pun writers rolling in their grave.
[02:38:24] <Marzo> Ugh
[02:38:41] <wizardrydragon> Yes, thats about what it sounds like.
[02:38:55] <Marzo> lol
[02:39:08] <wizardrydragon> Hmm.
[02:39:15] <Marzo> What?
[02:39:45] <wizardrydragon> Random thought: shouldn't guards carry torches at night? :P
[02:39:58] <Marzo> Possibly
[02:40:18] <Marzo> Although many of them carry halberds, which makes that tricky
[02:40:23] <wizardrydragon> Not really
[02:40:41] * Marzo is thinking that halberds are two-handed weapons
[02:40:42] <wizardrydragon> A halberd isn't hard to hold in one hand, just hard to weild in one hand.
[02:41:07] <Marzo> Well, in Exult you can only wield a halberd, not hold one
[02:41:19] <wizardrydragon> :)
[02:41:31] <wizardrydragon> The poor foot guards though, think of the poor foot guards!
[02:41:41] <Marzo> Maybe that is why guards always like to turn light poles on :-)
[02:41:48] <wizardrydragon> Lol
[02:41:53] <wizardrydragon> "Light poles"?
[02:42:11] <Marzo> It is the result of the lack of a good night of rest
[02:42:22] <wizardrydragon> "Rest"?
[02:43:05] <Marzo> You know, that strange action people do when they lay down on a soft surface and remain mostly motionless with their eyes closed for several hours in a row
[02:43:13] <wizardrydragon> Oh.
[02:43:17] <wizardrydragon> I should tryh that sometime.
[02:43:38] <Marzo> It might alleviate your fondness for the 'h' letter :-)
[02:43:51] <wizardrydragon> No, coffee to the keyboard did that.
[02:44:08] <Marzo> lol
[02:44:20] <wizardrydragon> The s key is worsse
[02:44:29] <wizardrydragon> (Hmm, case in point..)
[02:44:41] <Marzo> lol
[02:44:52] <Marzo> In an unrelated front: the final version of the new usecode scripting goes like this:
[02:45:21] <Marzo> you can use 'new script {commands}' to create an array that can be executed with EUA intrinsics
[02:45:53] <Marzo> You can use '<< {commands}' or '<< var' to append the commands or the var to another var
[02:46:31] <Marzo> And you can execute with EUA intrinsics or with 'obj.run_script(script, opt_delay)'
[02:46:51] <Marzo> Any last minute thoughts before I write the changelog and commit?
[02:47:36] <wizardrydragon> Yes, does this affect calling usecode commands in scripts?
[02:47:51] <Marzo> The UC script blocks? No
[02:47:58] <Marzo> They work as they did
[02:48:03] <Marzo> *still work
[02:48:21] <wizardrydragon> lol, they better still work silly.
[02:48:42] <Marzo> :-)
[02:48:53] <Marzo> It seems I misunderstood your question then
[02:49:46] <wizardrydragon> What I meant is more aslong the lines of "call I call usecode functions in the new constructs' scripts?"
[02:49:57] <Marzo> Yes, you can
[02:50:36] <Marzo> The '{commands}' part is identical in syntax and functionality to the usual UCC script blocks
[02:51:19] <Marzo> (including the semi-colon requirements)
[02:52:07] <Marzo> The 'new script {commands}' will likely be used in the right hand, like this:
[02:52:08] <wizardrydragon> Blah @ semi-colons. Blah, I say.
[02:52:15] <Marzo> var scr = new script {commands};
[02:52:37] <Marzo> While the '<<' constructs are used like this:
[02:52:46] <Marzo> scr << {commands};
[02:52:48] <Marzo> Or:
[02:52:53] <Marzo> scr << scr2;
[02:53:10] <wizardrydragon> Does it have any nesting caveats?
[02:53:19] <Marzo> The last one is a shorthand to scr = [scr, scr2];
[02:53:26] <Marzo> None that I can think of
[02:54:17] <Marzo> (and just to be sure: what exactly do you mean by 'nesting caveats'?)
[02:54:37] <wizardrydragon> Ie, does it explode violently when nested? :)
[02:55:00] <Marzo> Oh, you mean something like 'scr << scr2 << scr3;'?
[02:55:58] <wizardrydragon> More as in, (((src << scr2) << scr3 << scr4) << scr5 << scr6)
[02:56:13] <Marzo> So far, it doesn't allow that
[02:56:18] <Marzo> Maybe I should...
[02:57:33] <Marzo> So far, 'scr << scr2;' is all that is allowed
[02:57:38] <wizardrydragon> I take it << is the only operator it accepts?
[02:57:44] <Marzo> Yes
[02:57:57] <wizardrydragon> Makes sense mind you.
[02:58:02] <Marzo> As I said, you can also use scr = [scr, scr2] instead
[02:58:16] <wizardrydragon> Coulds be useful to be able to prepend items.
[02:58:34] <Marzo> I was just thinking that, lol
[02:58:50] <Marzo> Using a syntax like scr >> scr2 you mean?
[02:59:32] <wizardrydragon> Indeed.
[03:00:23] <Marzo> There is a slight ambiguity, though; would that mean that scr should be joined to scr2 and the result assigned to scr2 or that scr2 should be prepended to scr and the result assigned to scr?
[03:00:37] <Marzo> i.e.:
[03:00:54] <Marzo> scr >> scr2 <==> scr = [scr2, scr];
[03:01:09] <Marzo> or scr >> scr2 <==> scr2 = [scr, scr2];
[03:01:29] <wizardrydragon> For instance, consider the spell code. You could have
[03:01:29] <wizardrydragon> var script = "ritual; "
[03:01:29] <wizardrydragon> if (notinmagicstorm) "nohalt; sfx num;" >> script
[03:01:29] <wizardrydragon> else "nohalt; " >> script >> "call spellFails";
[03:01:59] <Marzo> Second case then
[03:02:35] <Marzo> Although it least to confusion
[03:02:53] <wizardrydragon> Not neccesarily.
[03:02:58] <Marzo> For example, in ' else "nohalt; " >> script >> "call spellFails";', the result is not assigned to any variables
[03:02:59] <wizardrydragon> Require the result to be assigned.
[03:03:00] <wizardrydragon> Ie
[03:03:39] <wizardrydragon> else script = "nohalt; " >> script >> "call spellfails; ";
[03:03:56] <Marzo> Could work
[03:04:19] <Marzo> Although it least to an assymmetry between << and >>
[03:05:02] <Marzo> In any case, I'll have to rework << to allow chaining
[03:05:23] <wizardrydragon> "assymetry"?
[03:05:36] <wizardrydragon> Donkeys have nothing to do with symmetry.
[03:05:41] <wizardrydragon> :P
[03:05:46] <Marzo> :-)
[03:06:34] <Marzo> Delete one 's' mentally from that sentence and re-read it :-)
[03:06:47] <wizardrydragon> sLol
[03:06:54] <Marzo> lol
[03:06:57] <wizardrydragon> I am used to deleting s' for some reason.
[03:07:52] <Marzo> Well, I think I will be intentionally deleting s' to balance out the score
[03:08:07] <Marzo> For example, saying thinks like heep
[03:08:13] <wizardrydragon> lol
[03:08:16] <Marzo> *things
[03:08:37] <wizardrydragon> Okay the s's I can understand, but what did k's ever do to you?
[03:08:45] <Marzo> :-)
[03:09:22] <Marzo> FYI: the origin of the '<<' for this function is C++'s insertion operator '<<' for output streams
[03:09:37] <wizardrydragon> I hypothesised such.
[03:09:43] <Marzo> It is used in Exult to create usecode scripts
[03:10:16] <Marzo> The '>>' operator is the extraction operator for input streams, converselly
[03:11:04] <Marzo> Now that I think about it, the '>>' operator wouldn't be much needed; e.g.,
[03:11:33] <Marzo> scr << {nohalt;} << ritual << {sfx 65;};
[03:11:55] <Marzo> scr << {nohalt;} << ritual << {call spellFails;
[03:12:27] <wizardrydragon> Well if you have an append it's only natural to have a prepend.
[03:12:54] <Marzo> Not *neccessarily*, but I see your point
[03:13:16] <wizardrydragon> Its like using AND and OR; sure, you can do everything with one of them, but often it's a whole lot less backwards to use one over the other
[03:13:29] * Marzo points out that in C++, '<<' essentially appends, but that there is no corresponding operator to prepend
[03:13:58] * wizardrydragon points out that C++ is very obtuse in several ways.
[03:14:13] <Marzo> lol
[03:14:49] * wizardrydragon actually wrote an essay for his computer science thesis pointing out several of the ways C/C++ is obtuse and counterintuitive.
[03:15:05] <Marzo> That would be an interesting read
[03:15:28] <Marzo> At the very least, it would give me ideas of things that I should *not* do for UCC :-)
[03:15:54] <Marzo> Do you still have that essay floating around perchance?
[03:16:11] <wizardrydragon> In print form its in my desk.
[03:16:36] <wizardrydragon> Now, if you've ever seen the state of my desk, you would know that "in my desk" is not nearly specific enough.
[03:16:57] <Marzo> You should see mine
[03:17:57] <Marzo> There are basically three large piles in it, and several smaller ones: one has mostly books, one has some books and lots of paper and the last large pile is all papers
[03:18:03] <wizardrydragon> Comparing organizational nightmares are we?
[03:18:16] <Marzo> All mixed up; RPG, Ultima, things from my doctorate...
[03:18:33] <wizardrydragon> Mine is one big pile of "stuff" that breaks down into approximately five smaller (relatively speaking) piles of more specific stuff
[03:19:58] <wizardrydragon> Speficially: a pile of schoolwork, a pile of paperwork from work, a collection of painting stuff huddled desperately around a desk easel, a can collection the likes of which some Coca-Cola plants would be envious of, and a few tons worthh of RPG manuals and video game manuals.
[03:20:16] <Marzo> :-)
[03:20:33] <wizardrydragon> Said pile is fairly well seasoned evenly with a collection of mail.
[03:21:39] <wizardrydragon> At least I can fit my feet under it. I took a day out the other day to make it so that could happen.
[03:24:53] <wizardrydragon> Now if I could transmute the pop tins into bottles, I could pass as Dupre :)
[03:25:05] <Marzo> lol
[03:26:01] <Marzo> You could aways start drinking beer instead of coke and *become* Dupre :-p
[03:26:51] <wizardrydragon> Nah, I'm allergic to self-cremation.
[03:27:00] <Marzo> lol
[03:28:28] <wizardrydragon> ?seen Vistaer
[03:28:28] <exultbot> vistaer left IRC around Fri Sep 15 11:51:58 2006 (GMT) ()
[03:28:53] <wizardrydragon> Speaking of firey deaths :D
[03:28:55] <Marzo> ?seen Crysta
[03:28:55] <exultbot> crysta left IRC around Tue Oct 24 19:57:27 2006 (GMT) (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[03:29:03] <Marzo> lol
[03:29:16] <wizardrydragon> I wonder where the hell he went :P
[03:29:34] <Marzo> I suggested to Crysta to work on making a paperdoll for Iolo's lute, but there has been no progress on that front
[03:29:53] <Marzo> I think I'll have to do it myself
[03:30:08] <wizardrydragon> I'd call the fact that you're still breathing is some pretty good progress.
[03:30:15] <Marzo> Poor Iolo is the only one whose spell item cannot be readied anywhere
[03:30:20] <Marzo> lol
[03:30:32] <Marzo> Well, Crysta actually liked the suggestion
[03:30:45] <wizardrydragon> Well then thats a great deal of progress.
[03:30:55] <Marzo> :-)
[03:31:05] <wizardrydragon> Generally speaking if you get anything other than outright refusal hyou're doing well :)
[03:31:20] <Marzo> lol
[03:40:50] <Marzo> Well, I am off to bed
[03:40:54] <Marzo> Good night
[03:41:51] <-- Marzo has left IRC ("Marzo vanishes suddenly.")
[08:39:00] <-- wizardrydragon has left IRC (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
[18:02:01] --> wizardrydragon has joined #tfl
[18:02:01] --- ChanServ gives channel operator status to wizardrydragon
[21:14:56] --> Marzo has joined #tfl
[21:14:57] --- ChanServ gives channel operator status to Marzo
[21:15:07] <Marzo> Hi
[21:15:24] <wizardrydragon> Hi
[21:15:40] <Marzo> What, no mooing like a cow?
[21:16:01] <wizardrydragon> Don't act too happy :P
[21:16:17] <Marzo> Not happy, stunned :-p
[21:16:50] <wizardrydragon> Hah
[21:29:43] <wizardrydragon> *awkeard silence*
[21:34:06] --> Crysta has joined #TFL
[21:36:33] <wizardrydragon> Hi
[21:36:46] <Marzo> Hi
[21:37:20] <Crysta> yo
[21:38:36] <wizardrydragon> I hereby declare the greeting phase of this conversation over. And without a single moo, either!
[21:39:13] <Marzo> There was one in that last sentence; this means you lied :-)
[21:39:39] <Crysta> lol
[21:40:39] <wizardrydragon> Lol.
[21:40:44] <wizardrydragon> Pfft, semantics.
[21:40:52] <Crysta> sorry im quiet
[21:40:58] <Crysta> was fighting undead in UO
[21:41:02] <Crysta> now im selling stuff
[21:41:15] <Marzo> BTW, did you do anything regarding the paperdoll for Iolo's lute?
[21:41:17] * Marzo ducks
[21:41:25] <Crysta> no.. not yet
[21:41:28] <Crysta> i know im lazy :p
[21:41:36] <wizardrydragon> We all are :D
[21:41:40] * wizardrydragon ducks.
[21:42:04] <Marzo> Not so much lazy as insane
[21:42:07] <Marzo> :-)
[21:42:16] <wizardrydragon> Both.
[21:45:19] <wizardrydragon> At least I have a pretty good handle on what I want to do with the spell system, structure wise.
[21:45:33] <Marzo> :-)
[21:45:36] <wizardrydragon> Marzo, when do you plan to implement your changes to the spell casting system?
[21:46:03] <Marzo> Reply hazy; ask again later :-p
[21:46:31] <wizardrydragon> Well, I ask because I don't want to be tripping over you; I've held off working on it until you're done your changes.
[21:47:30] <Marzo> I think I understood what you meant by that last sentence, but the english there was terrible :-)
[21:48:19] <wizardrydragon> Actually it's a perfectly valid sentence.
[21:48:26] <wizardrydragon> It's just potentially unclear.
[21:52:38] <Marzo> bbl
[21:52:46] <wizardrydragon> Take care
[21:52:50] --- Marzo is now known as Marzo_away