John Hatpin <RemoveThisjfhopkin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Snidely wrote:
> John Hatpin <RemoveThisjfhopkin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Getting back to the topic, for something simple like filling in a
> > rectangle, you could use the "binary array" technique. Multiplying
> > or ****fting would be needed, and masking, too, but otherwise the
> > arithmetic is simple even without base conversion.
> Sure, so each native bit stores the status of a cell, and you get 32
> per integer. That's what - about 2KB for a 255x255 array? Certainly
> doable.
> >> Even more frustratingly, there's no alternative method of storing
> >> data - no databases, no writing to files, nothing. You can read
> >> (text) data all right, just not perform any kind of write
> >> operation. Amazing, huh?
> > Well, how much does a rock or a tent want to write?
> Hey, there's more then just rocks and tents in there. You get walls
> too, and various other things.
Encode the data in one of those various other things? Like, you've got
grass in your yard. Store data in blades of grass. You've got paintings
in your house? Store data in paintings. If you have inter-object
communication, there's got to be a way for objects to remember each
other's crap.
....that's it: you don't map your land, you build 'rails' out of blades
of grass, and let the bird follow that. Or you put an actual fence
around your land, and the bird stays inside that.
> No, seriously, sometimes the lack of any kind of data storage means
> that things you want to do just can't be done. Only today I had a
> house-building script present me with a whole bunch of base-64 encoded
> data in chat, asking me to copy/paste it from the chat history window
> into a notepad for storage in case it got reset and lost its memory.
> That's pretty common. It can read the notepad all right when it
> loads, and build its memory back up from that, but it can't write the
> data itself.
There has to be a way to hide data there somehow.
--
Huey
|
