Dennis Schridde schreef:
> Am Donnerstag, 25. Januar 2007 18:38 schrieb Troman:
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Troman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "Troman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:57 PM
>> Subject: temp
>>
>>>> Wel the functions on their own look quite good to me.
>>>> Their prototypes however... Let's just say that I don't like the idea of
>>>> passing pointers into the scripting engine.
>>>>
>> Why not? That's the way most of the scripting stuff works right now.
>> Scripts currently work with a lot of pointers passed from WZ, although from
>> the scriptor's point of view there's no difference between integers/bools
>> or pointers to some internal wz structures.
>> Not that it really matters to me. If we just work with integer ids, that
>> would mean we have less different types to define for scripts (I don't
>> really like the idea of flooding scripts with dozens of new types, unless
>> really needed, but i'm not yet sure what would be optimal for us).
>>
The fact that that's the currently employed technique hardly makes it be
good. And indeed from the scripter there is no difference between a
regular integer or a pointer. Which makes it all the more dangerous to
pass pointers into scripts. This could easily result in a segfault
beyond our control.
>>>> In fact I think dynamic arrays (std::vector or std::list) are probably
>>>> the
>>>> best way to solve this. Then once your using C++ anyway you might as
>>>> well use a smartpointer to hold the `track' object which will fix the
>>>> problem I
>>>> mentioned above.
>>>>
>>>> Such a small usage of C++ should be rather easy to contain/manage in a
>>>> single (e.g. `lib/sound/playlist.cpp') source file.
>>>>
>>> Well, C doesn't have std::vector, so I had no other idea...
>>> What I just thought about was some selfmade dynamic array:
>>> struct Playlist { meta-info; Track[]; }
>>> malloc( sizeof(meta-info) + sizeof(Track*) * playlistSize );
>>> or realloc( ... );
>>> Doesn't look nice, but would be an option...
>>>
>> While surely not as elegant as dynamic arrays we can as well just use fixed
>> arrays if those are only used to hold pointers to playlists, to be honest I
>> doubt anyone would want more than, say, 20 playlists at a time (i'm being
>> rather generous).
>>
Erm, I actually meant to contain the playlist itself (i.e. a list of
tracks in an order) in a dynamic array, so that dynamic array would _be_
the playlist.Oh and 20 playlists? Yes you're being generous, I'd guess 5 would already be enough. ;-) >>>>>>>>> WZSound_setPlaylist( "none" ); >>>>>>>>> WZSound_playTrack( "event1.ogg" ); >>>>>>>>> WZSound_setPlaylistMode( "shuffle", "fadein" ); >>>>>>>>> WZSound_setPlaylistMode( "repeat_all", "crossfade", "fadeout" ); >>>>>>>>> WZSound_setPlaylistMode( "none" ); >>>>>>>>> >>>> Lets not use Cstrings (or any piece of rope for that matter; i.e. >>>> strings) >>>> to indicate play modes. >>>> >>> This was for the scripting engine. I don't think it supports bitflags, >>> does >>> it? So the first and possibly easiest option was concatenating strings. >>> Maybe we could also provide the C-defines (PLAYLIST_SHUFFLE,...) as >>> constants >>> to the scripting engine and add them on another... >>> >> Sure, best way to solve this is to provide constants predefined by wz, >> works like a charm. >> Sounds nice. >>>>>>>> PS: geez am I the only one having trouble replying to attached >>>>>>>> files? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apparently: Yes... >>>>>>> >>>>>> Wouldn't have asked if it was apparent. I was refering to those '>' >>>>>> markers actually. Don't see a way how to add them with outlook >>>>>> express, >>>>>> which forces me to make a small detour. >>>>>> >>>>> Outlook doesn't give you those '>' if you press reply on a mail which >>>>> has >>>>> an attached file??? >>>>> >>>> Of course I can advise you to take and use Thunderbird instead ;-) . >>>> It's more powerful than Outlook (e.g. in case of low level access, mem >>>> footprint, etc). >>>> >> Might as well do this someday, for now I think I'll give Outlook a try and >> see if it offers enough functionality (using Outlook Express right now). >> >> BTW why don't we just use forums for such discussions? This starts to look >> a bit awkward to me. Maybe we can ask Kamaze to set up some protected area >> for the developers and those participating in the mailinglist discussion? >> Personally i'd also be fine with a public forum, not sure if this would >> work well though. >> > I think most of us are going well with a mailinglist and prefer it this way. > At least to me it's much simpler to fire up my mail client and watch several > threaded discussions. Forums have that flat, time-related style (lost the > words... Allready getting late. I mean they only have one direction, you > can't split of a discussion as easily) which makes the inconvenient IMO... > Yep, I'm one of them, I really do prefer an email client above a forum. -- Giel
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
