On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 17:06:40 UTC, Kiith-Sa wrote:
On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 15:21:00 UTC, Elvis Zhou wrote:
On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 14:19:20 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 10/07/2013 02:18 AM, Elvis Zhou wrote:
Just a little note: As it's more readable, you may want to
use 1000.msecs instead of dur!("msecs")(1000) in the example
program. 1000.msecs is the equivalent of the msecs(1000)
function call, which returns dur!("msecs")(1000).
Done, thank you!
I'm implementing pretty much the same thing in my project,
although I'm probably
more in line with the original blog post (e.g. every system can
specific components of an entity, which are statically
determined, entities are more lightweight, etc.). I'm using
much less OOP and more of a generic/metaprogramming approach.
Currently I'm trying to rewrite the code to add a concept of
"past" and "future" state; a System processes past Components
and outputs a future Component, past Components are const, and
no two systems may write to the same future Component. This
should allow very simple threading
with little synchronization.
I'll look at your code if there are interesting ideas.
The previous version of my entity system is used in my ICE game:
It's quite messy, though; which is why I'm rewriting it.
The new version doesn't even compile at the moment, I'm working
on it slowly as I'm studying and working at the same time right
I'll look over the comment and post if I have any further
feedback. The only thing I can say right now is that there is
inconsistent tab-space indentation in some parts of the code
*look over the code, not comment