DECORATE RepeatFunction

[Major Cooke]

This most likely isn't doable, but oh well. Thought I'd ask anyway.

(A_)RepeatFunction(numberoftimes, function)

Basically, it's meant to replace:

Code: Select all

TNT1 A 0
{
	A_SpawnItemEx("BFGImpactVapor",3,0,0,frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),0,SXF_NOCHECKPOSITION,128);
	A_SpawnItemEx("BFGImpactVapor",3,0,0,frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),0,SXF_NOCHECKPOSITION,128);
	A_SpawnItemEx("BFGImpactVapor",3,0,0,frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),0,SXF_NOCHECKPOSITION,128);
	A_SpawnItemEx("BFGImpactVapor",3,0,0,frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),0,SXF_NOCHECKPOSITION,128);
	A_SpawnItemEx("BFGImpactVapor",3,0,0,frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),0,SXF_NOCHECKPOSITION,128);
	A_SpawnItemEx("BFGImpactVapor",3,0,0,frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),0,SXF_NOCHECKPOSITION,128);
	A_SpawnItemEx("BFGImpactVapor",3,0,0,frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),0,SXF_NOCHECKPOSITION,128);
	A_SpawnItemEx("BFGImpactVapor",3,0,0,frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),0,SXF_NOCHECKPOSITION,128);
	A_SpawnItemEx("BFGImpactVapor",3,0,0,frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),0,SXF_NOCHECKPOSITION,128);
	A_SpawnItemEx("BFGImpactVapor",3,0,0,frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),0,SXF_NOCHECKPOSITION,128);
	A_SpawnItemEx("BFGImpactVapor",3,0,0,frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),0,SXF_NOCHECKPOSITION,128);
	//...
}

with this:

Code: Select all

TNT1 A 0
{
	RepeatFunction(11,A_SpawnItemEx("BFGImpactVapor",3,0,0,frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),0,SXF_NOCHECKPOSITION,128));
}

Calls that same A_SpawnItemEx 11 times.

I can understand if this isn't doable considering decorate functions most likely don't have the power to call other decorate action functions... buuuut, if randi could get them to work inside of if statements, maybe this can work too, somewhere along the lines?

[Monsterovich]

Better do:

Code: Select all

Repeat TNT1 A 10 // 10 times
{
A_SpawnItemEx("BFGImpactVapor",3,0,0,frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),0,SXF_NOCHECKPOSITION,128);
A_Something(...);
}

and

Code: Select all

Repeat TNT1 A 10 A_SpawnItemEx("BFGImpactVapor",3,0,0,frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),0,SXF_NOCHECKPOSITION,128)

or

Code: Select all

Repeat 10
{
    TNT1 A 0
    {
         A_SpawnItemEx("BFGImpactVapor",3,0,0,frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),0,SXF_NOCHECKPOSITION,128);
         A_Something(...);
    }
}

[NeuralStunner]

There are still situations where frame-stacking is not a bad idea:

Code: Select all

TNT1 AAAAAAAAAAA 0 // 11 'A's. AAA indeed.
{
	A_SpawnItemEx("BFGImpactVapor",3,0,0,frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),frandom(-4,4),0,SXF_NOCHECKPOSITION,128);
}

It seems like what you'd really want is a for loop... Which sounds super-WFDS.

[Major Cooke]

You're all missing the point. The point is to avoid frame repetition.

Code: Select all

const int RepeatTimes = 11;
//...

States
{
Spawn:
	TNT1 A 0
	{
		if (user_z)
		{
			RepeatFunction(RepeatTimes,A_SpawnItemEx(...));
		}
		else
		{
			A_SetTics(1);
		}
	}

The intention is to avoid jumping and repeating the same frame over and over with TNT1 AAAAA 0. Rather just repeat the function call and keep it all compact.
The fewer frames processed, the better. Especially if a function needs calling several hundred times. Keeping track of several hundred frames especially can become daunting after a while.
And if I were to hazard a guess, my way should be easier to handle than a repeat of a frame state over and over again... but I'm not randi and so I'm only guessing.

[Graf Zahl]

Sorry, but this would turn the entire thing into a mess. Maybe Randi can be convinced to add simple 'for' loops to DECORATE but this suggestion as-is is a 'no'.

[Major Cooke]

Thought so.

[NeuralStunner]

You're all missing the point.

Except I actually didn't:

It seems like what you'd really want is a for loop.

Nor did Monsterovich, for that matter:

Better do:
[Alternative syntax]

You need to read things a little closer before you dismiss them.

[Major Cooke]

No, really, you did misunderstand what I was going for. I didn't want MULTIPLE functions, I wanted it for one SINGLE function.

But at any case, no point continuing this argument.

[Leonard2]

Maybe Randi can be convinced to add simple 'for' loops to DECORATE

Would a submission that implements for/while loops in decorate be accepted?

[Major Cooke]

You might have to wait on randi to approve it, but otherwise there's no harm in trying!

[Graf Zahl]

Maybe Randi can be convinced to add simple 'for' loops to DECORATE

Would a submission that implements for/while loops in decorate be accepted?

If done properly, yes. In that case I wouldn't wait for approval.

[Nash]

I've asked about it before. Please make it happen, Leonard! =D