> > Is there really any fundamental difference between a mover and a teleporter? > > I could probably make a good argument for a teleporter with all the same > options for selecting what gets teleported. Is there really any reason to > have a separate object? Well, movers are very easy to set up in chains because they're directed. I suppose you could do the same thing with a teleporter--but when I first implemented it I considered it enough of a difference in action not to add all this stuff to a teleporter but rather simply create a new object, which would have all these extra properties that a generic teleporter doesn't really need: 1) A habit of moving something 1 square instead of arbitrary, the direction of motion being easily determined by where the mover points 2) the ability to FORCE whatever-it-is to move in that track by paralyzing him 3) an ability to define the speed of movement If you muck around and break the existing implementation, I expect you to fix all the maps! I think it's sensible to have a separate object rather than some sort of monstrous, do-all teleporter.... I mean, why don't we get rid of "teleporters" and simply put all mover and teleporter functionality into an exit???? PeterM > I guess I would argue that the best way to decide if you should have one > object type or several is to figure out which way leaves you with better > code. If you're reusing most of the same code for two different objects, > it's probably better to have a single object. If you're having too many > conditionals, then it might be time to split it into multiple objects. > > Of course, that's rather subjective. Well, I'm definitely on the side of a separate object for exits, movers, and teleporters. I think they're all different "enough". PeterM