On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 08:21:09PM -0400, Mike Caron wrote: > Ralph Versteegen wrote: > >2008/10/2 James Paige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>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. > > > >But complicating strings further by having three different string > >systems seems undesirable. > > > >>>>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. > > Not at all. Though I'm not sure what you mean by grouping, the other > stuff can be accomplished reasonably easily. Layering is a matter of > adding a layer member to the UDT, and calling draw_plotsprites more than > once. Attaching just requires two members in the UDT, and a bit of math > in draw_plotsprite. > > All of which I was planning to do (and still am going to do), once I get > the base grunt work done.
Grouping will be a big deal. It means that layers will really behave like a tree rather than a list. --- James _______________________________________________ Ohrrpgce mailing list [email protected] http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
