Ya sorry about that, things at home werent too wonderful.
(aka:
Parents giving me some serious flak)
I understand. It was my error(bad assumtion) that caused the extra wait so you dont really need to take special consideration to my library.
oh,
But please dont be biased towards my library(when you are reviewing) because I was an ###. (Not saying you would) Cause that would suck. ;(
Winbiko wrote:
It was my error(bad assumtion) that caused the extra wait so you dont really need to take special consideration to my library. It wasn't really your error -- the UI was kind of lying to you. I only bring up the attitude thing because I'm just a volunteer in this donating my time, so I don't feel required to accept attitude about it (unlike, say, BYONDscape where people are paying for a service so they get to expect something more.) But please dont be biased towards my library(when you are reviewing) because I was an ###. (Not saying you would) Cause that would suck. ;( One of the reasons I have a set of guidelines for games and libraries is to give myself a way to ignore any inherent bias. Either a game/library meets the objective guidelines or it doesn't, with a bit of judgment thrown in as to whether the project reflects well on BYOND. There is one case where I don't know if I executed unbiased judgment...a guy submitted a library that was a hacked together version of half the functionality in my CharacterHandling library. It didn't provide the functionality people would actually need (no way to delete characters, for example) and had the description "At least now there's an alternative to Deadron's library", and it begged for dimes. I rejected that one without response...where perhaps I should have specified what functionality the library would need to be useful to people, even if that would result in a badly-executed clone of an existing library. | |
There is one case where I don't know if I executed unbiased judgment...a guy submitted a library that was a hacked together version of half the functionality in my CharacterHandling library. It didn't provide the functionality people would actually need (no way to delete characters, for example) and had the description "At least now there's an alternative to Deadron's library", and it begged for dimes. I rejected that one without response...where perhaps I should have specified what functionality the library would need to be useful to people, even if that would result in a badly-executed clone of an existing library. Well, if it's any consolation, I have nothing against the people making their own administration libraries -- in fact, I encourage some of them -- but I would be really iffy on the issue of allowing some of them into the hub. I won't qualify my reasons why, though, since I don't want to sound like a bigot or anything. | |
Spuzzum wrote:
Well, if it's any consolation, I have nothing against the people making their own administration libraries -- in fact, I encourage some of them -- but I would be really iffy on the issue of allowing some of them into the hub. Especially not the ones where they forgot to change the comments that no longer apply to their modification of s_admin. ;) | |
After a little further investigation I realize it isn't a normal verb. It's a proc I added to the client verbs list:
client
New()
..()
verbs += /client/proc/myprocverb
verb
myverb(mob/M in world)
src << M
proc
myprocverb(mob/M in world)
src << M
myverb() works perfectly, but myprocverb() is showing "myprocverb mob|obj|turf|area" in the titlebar of the input box.