> >> 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. > > But complicating strings further by having three different string > systems seems undesirable.
No, it would still just be two systems. This would just be a small easy extension to the old system. Do you have an implementation plan for real strings? If it turns out to be easy enough, maybe I won't need to bother with the above. > >> > 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. > > So, right now there is no layering-control support at all? When you > strip away layering, grouping and attaching, it seems like this must > be quite diffiferent from what we want to end up with. Yes. Fortunately, once layering, grouping and attaching is implemented it will be quite powerful, so emulating old behaviour by default won't be so tough -- and we will already have to do a heck of a lot of emulating old behaviour by default anyway, sprites or no sprites. (see the Plan) --- James _______________________________________________ Ohrrpgce mailing list [email protected] http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
