Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: nntp.gmd.de!Dortmund.Germany.EU.net!main.Germany.EU.net!EU.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!erkyrath
From: erkyrath@netcom.com (Andrew Plotkin)
Subject: Re: MaxTADS & addword/delword
Message-ID: <erkyrathE0s2Cp.IyL@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <erkyrathE0GK4C.Is8@netcom.com> <565jvc$m0j@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <erkyrathE0oy2D.7py@netcom.com> <566gi3$o0c@milo.vcn.bc.ca> <567vig$all@wanda.vf.pond.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 21:58:01 GMT
Lines: 23
Sender: erkyrath@netcom.netcom.com

Matthew T. Russotto (russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com) wrote:
> In article <566gi3$o0c@milo.vcn.bc.ca>, Neil K. Guy <nkg@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:

> } Is that because of the complexity of TADS or because TADS supports 
> }multi-level undos whereas the Z-machine doesn't?

> Multi-level undos on the Z-machine are trivial to implement (if you
> don't mind sucking up memory like it's free), so it has to be the
> complexity of TADS.  But TADS supports dynamic memory, right?  So the
> simple Z-machine method wouldn't work.

It's not dynamic memory specifically, it's that TADS doesn't run in a 
flat memory space. 

(The Great IF Machine of the Future will support both dynamic memory and 
trivial undo.)

--Z

-- 

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
