Re: One for the programmers or maths/logic geeks

huey.callison@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

>Snidely <Snidely.too@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On May 13, 10:40 pm, huey.calli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>> > 3) it makes the code ****table, because then anybody can start the
>> >    object in any space, and it'll find its own borders. If he
>> >    hardcodes the space it's allowed to go in, it only works in his
>> >    space.
>> I wasn't hardcoding the space.  I was discovering the space.  I just
>> wasn't modelling 1 single bird in flight.
>
>Well, if you wanted to speed it up, you could make it a silent bird 
>with a telescope that was capable of hyperspace-jumps from point to 
>point, and rewrite my algorithm as follows

Nope.  No tele****ting.  For one thing, I want the thing to be making
noise on the wing, to give the illusion of birds on the wing.  For
another, it's not technically possible for a physical object to
tele****t without killing it off and creating another in the
destination position, which would bugger up any continuity you might
have had in mind.

Ironically, avatars can tele****t, and they can even carry persistent
objects on their person, such as clothes, jewellery and *** aids.  So
it's a world where the humans can tele****t around with ease, and do
so, but it's impossible to "TP" a non-living object without killing
it.

>I think the moral of this story is "Well, don't do that then".
>Only own rectangular parcels.

Or only cover rectangular areas, which was a compromise I'd already
decided.

Incidentally, it was only through development and testing of this
device that I discovered that my own rented plot isn't perfectly
square like I'd thought.  The landlord has reserved a 4m square in one
corner, presumably originally for the rental payment box but now just
fallow (the rental box is elsewhere).
-- 
John Hatpin