[CF-Devel] Crossfire Scripting Language, version 1.0.0b8

[Mark Wedel]

 Please remove me from an explicit copy if also sending to the list - I don't
need two copies of everthing.

Bob Tanner wrote:
>
     
     
     >
     
      Quoting Peter Mardahl (
      
      peterm at tonks.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
      
      ):
     
     >
     
      > I have not yet tested it, but I find the writer's arguments in
     
     >
     
      > favor of Guile persuasive.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      I have not posted my "future of crossfire" document yet. But I am wondering what
     
     >
     
      the time frame is on this decision?
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      I have some ideas, but I need more time to write them out, so is the scripting
     
     >
     
      language going to be something decided in the next couple of days?
     
     
 Presumably the scripting language will be extensible - what is there now does
not necessarily mean that is all the language will ever be able to do.  In a
sense, just as objects are - much has been added since the original crossfire.

 Now if the scripting is not extendable, then that is good information to know.

 As for going into CVS:
CVS should not be the main testing place for new features.  If that happens, the
end result is that the CVS tree will probably become so unstable that virtually
no one will use it, and hence no testing will get done.  The argument that
crossfire is currently not really stable is not a good argument IMO.  There may
very well be just one bug causing the current set of crashes which can get fixed
up, so introducing a new set that may add new crashpoints isn't useful

 IMO, what Gros has been doing - sending a patch to the list, is the best
solution.  It makes it widely available and lets people use it and test it out
on a smaller basis.  And in fact, if we want to put it in as a branch release, I
don't have a big problem with that.

 Now when is something ready to go into CVS?  A lot depends on the author - some
may feel more confident about their code than others.  But in all cases, if the
author feels there are still some big bugs, it should not go in.

 Unrelated - just because something is done first does not always mean that
should always be considered the code that should be taken.  In this particular
case, it seems there is agreement and with the amount of work done, it seems
this will be the final solution.

 But through my experience with crossfire through the years, I have seen many
cases where the first 'working solution' which was adopted may have in fact been
a bad thing.  My main point here is that just because someone wrote the first
working version of some desired piece should not mean that is the one that
always gets included.

 that said, I expect at some point between now and 2.0 there will be phase where
there will be code in CVS which will not be meant for public servers (there are
some pretty big changes listed).  But some of that I see more with compatibility
issues (for example, going to a 17x17 map will break all existing clients out
there right now).