>> Perhaps randomized support, [...] > I like the idea, [...] > Should I still add shortcuts for turning the failure on/off or should > those be replaced by setting random 0/1?
I'd hesitate to tell you what you should do. But it seems to me that it's worth having on/off as separate controls for two reasons: (1) it's a more human-friendly interface and (2) it is reasonable to turn something off, then back on, and expect the random-chance setting to be the same as it was before turning it off. Whether "off" is implemented as "chance = 0" under the hood (with the previous setting saved elsewhere for turning back on), or as a separate internal control, would then be an implementation issue. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
