|
KaVir wrote April 25 2005,13:34
Right - I guess I'd settle for your type 2 then, which seems to combine the best of the two cultures. Typically enough that is also the one that demands the most work from the Builder. And - since this thread is about Mud Aestethics - I can see at least one problem with it. How do you handle the formatting of the lines, when some of the dynamic input may be of varying length?
Anyhow, the code generated descs that I mentioned were of course of type 3. Do you happen to remember what Mud they were in? I would have liked to see some more of them. The examples that were posted on the board at the time looked impressive enough, but I suspect that they chose some of the descs that looked the best for that. And I also wonder how many variables they had - i.e. how soon the descs got repetitive.
|