The “THING” class

As stated previously, I am porting a version of Rogue from 1984 originally written in C for DOS into C#.

Many things wind up easy to port.  Most #defines wind up as const or readonly fields.  Everything winds up a static field or method of a single Program class.

However, the THING “class” was the strangest bit to port thus far.

THING represents either a monster or an item.

It is a union.

Each of the two substructs in the union contain pointers to other THING variables.

So, its a linked list *AND* a union.

Now, I’m attempting to do a “faithful” port, which means it is my goal to get as close to the original as possible (within reason), so I’ve got a kind of ugly re-representation of THING in my code.  It works, anyway.

When porting old code like this, I don’t typically question these things too heavily.  I have to rely on the good faith of the developer twenty four years ago.  He had a perfectly good reason for choosing a union.  I just don’t see what it was.


One thought on “The “THING” class

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s