Splitting archetypes and formulae

[Stephan-Alexander Heyn]

Dear forum-users,

due to some suggestions to be posted (sorry) I wonder, if the above mentioned file could/should be splitted for reasons of easier ways to append some new items?
Or is this not favourable?


Yours sincerely,
Stephan-Alexander Heyn

[mwedel]

Unless I'm misunderstanding the question, the archetypes are already split.

If you check out/download the arch repository, it has all the archetypes as individual files. The archetypes file is a collection of all those. This does make for easier editing.

The formula file, however, is not split. It probably wouldn't be that hard to split it - in the case of formula that makes an archetype, calling it something like ring.form (or maybe ring.fmla) could be done. However, a fair number of recipes do not create a real archetype, but rather a modification of one, so exactly where to bundle those perhaps get trickier.

[Stephan-Alexander Heyn]

Hallo Mark,

Unless I'm misunderstanding the question, the archetypes are already split.
If you check out/download the arch repository, it has all the archetypes as individual files. The archetypes file is a collection of all those. This does make for easier editing.
The formula file, however, is not split. It probably wouldn't be that hard to split it - in the case of formula that makes an archetype, calling it something like ring.form (or maybe ring.fmla) could be done. However, a fair number of recipes do not create a real archetype, but rather a modification of one, so exactly where to bundle those perhaps get trickier.

Thanks for Your answer.
You didn't misunderstand my posting; however I did misunderstand the fact You posted: since I've accidently overread the manual (sorry!) I've edited the archetypesfile on my computer myself.

The idea of splitting these additional files is based on the following thoughts:
Assuming inserting a new archetype with using some artifacts-features (in this case e.g.: "of flawless beauty" this could/should also have a corresponding file for the same reasons as for archtypes. Dito for formulae. Easy expansion, because many gems do have similar colours, but different values/characteristics (in RL also).

EG:
arch citrin
face citrin.101
name citrin
value 20000
weight 10
end

as artifact to above mentioned "of flawless beauty"
as formulae a recipe for building this type of jewel from another one, as is similar in RL. This is also, why I suggest the formulae being splitted for easier expansions.


additional artifact (why not having a malformed gem?) e.g.:
object of Tinnef
allowed <jewels>
value -10
damned 1
end

Please note: I'm working at the moment without any doc provided just as my free knowledge; therefore some syntax can be/is surely wrong. Hopefully You see what I mean. Otherwise I deliver the correct entries later. Please let me know.

Yours sincerely,
Stephan-Alexander Heyn