On Oct 19, 8:08 pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 19, 1:19 am, dex <josipmisko...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if it's a good idea to let an item disappear from your > > > inventory by a weak reference disappearing. It seems a little shaky > > > to not know where your objects are being referenced, but that's yout > > > decision. > > > OK, imagine a MUD, where players can "dig out" new rooms. Room A has a > > door that holds reference to newly created room B. By "using" a door, > > player is transported to room B. At later time someone destroys room > > B. > > > Using strong references, I have to remove room B from list of rooms, > > and also remove door to room B, as it holds reference to room B. To do > > that, I have to keep list of doors that lead to room B. > > > Using weak references, I don't have to worry about removing all doors > > to room B. They all now have a dead reference, which better models > > actual situation. If part of mine collapses, or if a module on space > > station is destroyed, the passage to that location does not magically > > vanish - it's just obstructed. > > > Can you please tell me if there's something wrong with my reasoning? > > Well, you're talking about particulars here whereas I am speaking in > general. If something is "questionable" or even "bad" in general it > doesn't mean there are no particular cases for it. > > Generally speaking: in a game there's presumably some conservation of > objects. If you drop an item, does it disappear, or does it become an > object of the room? Weak referencing won't help you in the latter > case because you have to take care of references at both ends anyway. > That's what I mean by shaky: it lets you forget about half of the > transaction, which might not be the best thing. YMMV > > Carl Banks
I see your point. I'll think this through and try to build more robust system. Thanks for your insight. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
