From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b1a7f997d8127c14
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Too many tasks?  overhead questions.
Date: 1997/04/28
Message-ID: <EACHUS.97Apr28142828@spectre.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 238033149
References: <5jlkdu$rub@corn.cso.niu.edu>
 <01bc5256$1c9c4640$28f982c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <01bc5256$1c9c4640$28f982c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> "Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> writes:

  > Yes, provided the machine you are running on will allow it, you should use
  > a task to represent each character (player and NPC), as well as each object
  > in the game (e.g. a magic door which opens under certain conditions, etc.).

  Sure have a task for each player, but objects should be protected
objects--they don't need their own thread of control.  NPCs are an
interesting issue, those pinned in a certain place should probably be
treated as objects, those that wander the dungeon should have their
own task or tasks.  (Of course, if you have one task for all NPCs,
make sure that NPCs don't try to interact...)

  Good luck.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...