Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus <schwa at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> I think that Andreas is proposing doing away with this invariant, or making
> it one-directional:

I understand that - this takes advantage of the (I hope) fact that some
stuff happens top-down, and some bottom-up. What I'm saying is that
another way to solve the initial problem presented (every morphs world
should be well defined, and removal from owner shouldn't break that), is
to keep the invariant, and add another one - no morph is ever removed,
they are only moved. To take a morph out of its specific place in a
structure, move it to the owners world. To take it out of the world,
move it to the AstralWorld. This is also where morphs would live
initially.

Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> I'm not sure if that AstralWorld would help too much here since typically,
> we require a "valid world" if we need to refer to it (and the AstralWorld
> wouldn't really be one). 
I intended for it to be a valid world, just undisplayed, unstepped and
maybe also un-some-other things. Is there any reason why it can't be
valid?

It might hold its submorphs weakly. This reminds me more of the astral
plane (D&Ds) every passing moment...

Daniel