On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 12:28:05PM +1300, Ralph Versteegen wrote: > 2008/10/2 Mike Caron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > James Paige wrote: > >> > >> Eeep! > >> > >> 1) I was about to cut the branch for Xocolatl, but now I am not so sure. > >> Do I cut from revision 2302? Do I delay another week or two for further > >> testing and more features? > > > > I've tested this thoroughly. Seriously. Let me add the other sprite loading > > functions, then I'll call this feature complete. > > > > If you want, cut it at 2302, but I suspect a bunch of people would be > > annoyed if they learned what they just missed. ;) > > > >> 2) Spiiiiiify. There is so cool! I am glad you went with a load/free > >> model. Much better than a fixed id model. I'll be retrofitting strings for > >> a > >> load/free model soon after Xocolatl. > > > > I've always advocated this format. I mean, just look at the rest of the code > > I write. > > NO!!!!! > I want REAL strings as part of HamsterSpeak, without requiring manual > memory management. I was going to mention on the talk page for script > arrays that we should look at how we should improve strings first, and > see that array semantics would be much the same. (And therefore that I > don't like James' arrays suggestion either). Hint: it probably > involves adding either static or dynamic typing to the language.
I do think real strings would be a tasty language feature. However, the current string implementation has to stick around to satiate the daemon beast backwardscompatelzebub. What I plan is to add a .used member to the PlotString type. It will default to ON for strings 0-31. Then I will add a "create string" command which will find an unused string (and make the plotstring array bigger if necessary) and I will add a "free string" command that would set .s="" and .used=NO So the difference from the current string system would be very small, alll old scriipts would work the same as usual, and I don't think any extra work will have been created for potential future implementation of better strings. > > Well, I wasn't going to add an option at this point. However, there's no > > reason we can't add a "Z order", and then combine the two systems into one. > > But, that's for another day. > > > > I'm surprised that both aren't being added at once: I always > considered them the same thing. Me too, actually, which is why I hadn't tackled it sooner. --- James _______________________________________________ Ohrrpgce mailing list [email protected] http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
