OO and game design questions
josipmiskovic at gmail.com
Wed Oct 20 09:17:38 CEST 2010
On Oct 19, 8:08 pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 1:19 am, dex <josipmisko... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm not sure if it's a good idea to let an item disappear from your
> > > inventory by a weak reference disappearing. It seems a little shaky
> > > to not know where your objects are being referenced, but that's yout
> > > decision.
> > OK, imagine a MUD, where players can "dig out" new rooms. Room A has a
> > door that holds reference to newly created room B. By "using" a door,
> > player is transported to room B. At later time someone destroys room
> > B.
> > Using strong references, I have to remove room B from list of rooms,
> > and also remove door to room B, as it holds reference to room B. To do
> > that, I have to keep list of doors that lead to room B.
> > Using weak references, I don't have to worry about removing all doors
> > to room B. They all now have a dead reference, which better models
> > actual situation. If part of mine collapses, or if a module on space
> > station is destroyed, the passage to that location does not magically
> > vanish - it's just obstructed.
> > Can you please tell me if there's something wrong with my reasoning?
> Well, you're talking about particulars here whereas I am speaking in
> general. If something is "questionable" or even "bad" in general it
> doesn't mean there are no particular cases for it.
> Generally speaking: in a game there's presumably some conservation of
> objects. If you drop an item, does it disappear, or does it become an
> object of the room? Weak referencing won't help you in the latter
> case because you have to take care of references at both ends anyway.
> That's what I mean by shaky: it lets you forget about half of the
> transaction, which might not be the best thing. YMMV
> Carl Banks
I see your point. I'll think this through and try to build more robust
Thanks for your insight.
More information about the Python-list