Custom variables in DECORATE items

Post a reply

Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :geek: :ugeek: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :3: :wub: >:( :blergh:
View more smilies

BBCode is OFF
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Custom variables in DECORATE items

by Doomguy0505 » Tue Aug 09, 2005 6:30 am

don't know how you can expect graf and grubber to reinvent c++ for some decorate stuff

by MartinHowe » Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:58 am

FWIW, the original user-variables code was a submission intended mostly for discussion; I didn't expect Graf and Grubber to jump on it so eagerly! Nice to be loved :) I also originally envisiaged user variables as "custom actor properties" of course, but that would have been too much work to implement in the Unofficial Build.

It will be interesting to see how things eventually turn out...!

by Graf Zahl » Sun Jul 31, 2005 1:32 pm

That's what it most likely means. Keep in mind that the unofficial build is unofficial and that there was never a guarantee that all of it might be included in an official version.

Why do you think that I constantly argued against too radical changes? The thing with this is that although it is useful it might prove too limiting for future extensions. I understand Randy's motives in this matter fully and I have to agree with him up to a point.

To be on the safe side I'd not use these features right now.

by Nash » Sun Jul 31, 2005 1:02 pm

randy wrote:I like these ideas, and they will see their way to an official ZDoom, but I do not think I will use this specific implementation. Let me elaborate:

You limit each actor to a specific number of extra variables, they are unnamed, and they take up space even in actors that don't need them. We can take advantage of the class information maintained for each actor and extend them with however many additional variables we want at runtime.

As for the expression parsing, I was going to do this eventually. Now I will just have to do it sooner. I am looking at switching state actions into streams of p-code that can do much more complicated things than just calling a single function. All action functions, whether they take arguments or not, could be treated identically. And every function that takes parameters would automatically gain support for expression evaluation once a parser is in place that can generate the codes for them.
Wait a minute, Randy. Does this mean that anyone who's using these new variable features right now in the unofficial version will have their wads screw up in your next official release? Correct me if I'm wrong...

by TheDarkArchon » Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:39 am

"You are in no position to bargin. They WILL be staying with me."

:P

by Graf Zahl » Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:38 am

You are in no position to give orders here. I'll do it when I have time to do so, not when you want it.

by Talonos » Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:17 am

Hah! Graf! Randy said he would do it! Now document it!

by Grubber » Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:10 am

Grubber wrote:...it needs to be turned into REAL programming language...
Now you know what I meant.

by Graf Zahl » Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:57 pm

Somehow I was expecting this. I had the similar thoughts about the whole matter.

by randi » Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:27 pm

I like these ideas, and they will see their way to an official ZDoom, but I do not think I will use this specific implementation. Let me elaborate:

You limit each actor to a specific number of extra variables, they are unnamed, and they take up space even in actors that don't need them. We can take advantage of the class information maintained for each actor and extend them with however many additional variables we want at runtime.

As for the expression parsing, I was going to do this eventually. Now I will just have to do it sooner. I am looking at switching state actions into streams of p-code that can do much more complicated things than just calling a single function. All action functions, whether they take arguments or not, could be treated identically. And every function that takes parameters would automatically gain support for expression evaluation once a parser is in place that can generate the codes for them.

by Talonos » Thu Jul 28, 2005 2:46 pm

So... Graf. When I guessed, did I guess correctly?

by Belial » Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:56 pm

I agree on the 'you must' part. :)

You must love HOTU. ;)

by DoomRater » Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:31 am

I must play this System Shock you keep talking of.

by Belial » Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:47 am

To me, Flechette will always mean the SS1 minigun.

by DoomRater » Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:22 am

Hot flesh searing darts..... oooooo..... I thnk Flechette Cannon is pretty accurate.

Top