Support #Define in decorate parser & 'new' Decorate format

[Graf Zahl]

Care to say who that is and what's his connection with this topic?

[Spleen]

Care to say who that is and what's his connection with this topic?

It's Samuel Beckett, who wrote the play Waiting for Godot. How do I know? The image URL contains "beckett", and googling it confirms that this is his photo.

[Enjay]

It's Samuel Beckett. I have no idea what he has to do with the topic. Something to do with him being a "minimalist"?

[edit] Dammit and yeah, waiting for Godot (who never turns up IIRC) is more likely to be the link[/edit]

[Graf Zahl]

When even respectable community members are starting to make fun of this things have to be dire...

[Project Shadowcat]

When even respectable community members are starting to make fun of this things have to be dire...

I know most everyone likes to take it serious (even if they make fun of it), but consider how long most of them have waited. While I'm content with today's features, which can do so much already, to say that they've waited for (not an exaggeration) many years is pretty bad.
I know I haven't contributed to the trolling of the subject, but DoomScript deserves to be made fun of in every respect until it is actually out in front of us.

[Gez]

Hey, this isn't even Doomscript. Just a slightly modified DECORATE format whose whole point would be the ability to further expand it without compromising stability until DoomScript arrives. And the work is (mostly) done.

But it's never going to be thoroughly tested, bugfixed and finalised because it's never going to be added. Meaning this was merely an exercise in wasting time. Cue cricket chirping and Godot references. (I could have used Daudet's Girl from Arles as well but it's much more obscure. She's talked about during the whole play, but like Godot she's never seen.)

[Graf Zahl]

Hey, this isn't even Doomscript. Just a slightly modified DECORATE format whose whole point would be the ability to further expand it without compromising stability until DoomScript arrives. And the work is (mostly) done.

But it's never going to be thoroughly tested, bugfixed and finalised because it's never going to be added. Meaning this was merely an exercise in wasting time. Cue cricket chirping and Godot references. (I could have used Daudet's Girl from Arles as well but it's much more obscure. She's talked about during the whole play, but like Godot she's never seen.)

The new format isn't even complete yet and before that isn't done I see no point discussing future implications.

[randi]

I'm suprised this isn't already supported

What's wrong with

Code: Select all

const int foo = 10;

?

[Graf Zahl]

It can't be used for property parameters, only in expressions.

[randi]

And I thought you had changed it so any place that took constants could also use constant expression. My bad.

[Graf Zahl]

The problem with the properties is that the old sc_man - based parser is not stable enough so for the property definitions it has to be strictly numeric constants. When doing my last reorganization of the parser I tried but imagine the following construct:

Code: Select all

    damage 20
    +NORADIUSDMG

which any expression parser would interpret as 'damage 20 + NORADIUSDMG' and obviously reporting an error.

That's why I designed a new format because with such limitations in place I don't see any chance to extend DECORATE any longer. The other major problem I was having is that the state parser depends on newlines as terminators which also caused several problems already.