RE: That patch I had...

• Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 06:52:37 PST
• From:
  Ron Stanions <chaeon@roc.clawpaw.com>
• Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The best reason I can think of for something like this is to create puppets and allow them 
access to nearly all commands without having to perform major magic on the moocore.
It would in effect be a way to call -x verbs too.



----------
From:  Seth I. Rich[SMTP:sir@po.cwru.edu]
Sent:  Friday, January 19, 1996 9:07 AM
To:  moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
Subject:  Re: That patch I had...

>> This code creates a builtin called sneak() (or it can be renamed).  It 
>> allows you to input direct commands into a player (connected or 
>> non-valid), as though the player typed the command himself/herself.  The 
>> form is: sneak(player, string);
>
>This code is almost exactly like the 'do_command()' patch that has been 
>floating around.  It is incredibly useful... PAVEL PLEASE INSTALL THIS!  
>Perhps it would be better if the command actually work directly on 
>unconnected people, instead of having to use $network...

I can't see a use for this.  Why would a wizard want to cause another player to invoke commands?  Can't the wizard write code that doesn't require this sort of game-playing?  (How does this builtin handle the callers() stack?  Does it lie to callers() as well?)

Seth / Blackbriar
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seth I. Rich - sir@po.cwru.edu                         no, no quote.
Rabbits on walls, no problem.                          it's far too cold.

• Prev: Re: That patch I had...
• Next: Re: That patch I had...
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows