From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xconq7-return-3875-listarch-xconq7=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 8199 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2004 17:35:10 -0000
Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:xconq7-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/xconq7/>
List-Post: <mailto:xconq7@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 8190 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2004 17:35:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO av6-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net) (81.228.8.106)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 12 Aug 2004 17:35:09 -0000
Received: by av6-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502)
	id E28E037E45; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:34:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp2-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (smtp2-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net [81.228.8.177])
	by av6-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D06C737E42; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:34:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [212.181.162.155] (h155n1fls24o1048.bredband.comhem.se [212.181.162.155])
	by smtp2-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AF437E46;
	Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:34:57 +0200 (CEST)
X-Sender: u22611592@m1.226.comhem.se
Message-Id: <l03130303bd41598d7042@[212.181.162.155]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408121317570.29552-100000@leon.phy.cmich.edu>
References: <l03130301bd4152eae061@[212.181.162.155]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:15:00 -0000
To: Eric McDonald <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu>
From: Hans Ronne <hronne@comhem.se>
Subject: Re: time.g weirdness
Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com
X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00890.txt.bz2

>On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Hans Ronne wrote:
>
>> I would modify that to say that either move or volume restrictions, but not
>> the wreck-unit code, should be used to limit access. And I would in fact
>> recommend volume restrictions to somebody who is writing his first game,
>> since they are less likely to produce unexpected results (like the one we
>> are discussing). Move restrictions are more versatile, but also trickier to
>> use.
>
>You now seem much more comfortable with the volume restrictions
>than you did a year ago. I guess haven't found any good volume
>checking bugs in a while. ;-)

Well, volume checking is a problem for anyone who is writing kernel code.
But to a newbie game designer, volume restrictions are easier to use. That
was my whole point. No need to worry about border slides, ferry costs etc.

Hans