> It would require some changes, but I believe a common function (or > functions) is used for matching names, so it wouldn't be that much > harder. From what i remember of the code (ok i don't know it by heart, but have browsed it some), indeed... and actually one is partly broken somewhere, since sometimes 'apply Thei' (for apply ring of Thieves <- note the typo) can result in apply a haggis... > My motto in terms of development is 'do the correct implementation, > not the fast/easy implementation'. This is largely because in the > end, the correct implementation will almost certainly be done. Nice point. > If you start with just allowing some subset of items to be renamed, > almost certainly players will ask/want to be able to rename all > objects. And almost certainly, having it not be the official name > will sort out some obscure bugs. But are functions actually checking an item's name that many? I think for instance the god enchanting weapon one (to punish you if you have an item of another god), but are there others? Also, i'll point out that the prepare weapon actually changes the name (weapon->name) of the prepared item, so changing an item's name isn't that bad apparently ^_^ > One I can immediately think of is sacrifices on altars - if I'm able > to rename an object in my inventory to anything I want, and it updates > the official name, I've now just about come up with a way to do the > sacrifice on any altar in the game, even if that would normally > require very rare/hard to find objects. To avoid that kind of bugs, i was thinking of 1) only allowing containers & freely writable scrolls to be renamed (not something you often sacrifice i'm sure) 2) adding in front the item's type, like 'scroll: alchemy list A' or 'quiver: Fire Arrows'. This will ensure the name mentions the original item's type. Of course maybe putting dots is bad, don't know > There would of course have to be some exception handling for unique > maps/apartments, so that the custom name doesn't get stripped for > items that should legitamately keep their name. Would introducing that exception be all right? I'm afraid it'd somewhat make the code less readable, having too much special stuff... Just my 2 cents... Nicolas 'Ryo' _______________________________________________ crossfire-devel mailing list crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel