Talk:Little_things - hpgDesigns/hpgdesigns-dev.io GitHub Wiki
Ehm... don't hit me, but why exactly do we need to split draw functions? I believe that could increase the speed (by eliminating one if check), but that's about it. Is it planned to still have draw_circle function that has outline variable and just replace it on compile time with the draw_circle_outline/draw_circle_fill? HaRRiKiRi
- You forgot to tag your name, Harri. The reason we want split functions is primarily so that it's easier to read. Josh and I always forget whether the argument is true for fill or true for outline. Splitting them up makes it blatantly obvious. IsmAvatar 22:22, 20 March 2011 (CDT)
-
About the name - sorry. Didn't know that was necessary. But I
don't agree that this function split is better or even
necessary. If LGM (or ENIGMA, I can't be bothered to look what
runs the code editor) showed complete arguments (like in the
bottom of the editor just like GM), then I doubt there would be
a confusion. It just says "outline" which seems quite logical to
mean "draw outline when true, or solid (fill) when false". I
don't really care, but it seems to be longer to type "outline"
than just ",1". Also it breaks compatibility with existing GM
games, but doesn't necessarily cause hard porting (unless the
users uses 100ths of shapes). So its not that big of a deal, but
seems quite illogical to me. Making the outline parameter
optional (default to 0) seems like a much more better idea.
Peace. --[HaRRiKiRi](User:HaRRiKiRi "wikilink") 09:33, 21 March
2011 (CDT)
-
I originally suggested using fill_ and draw_, like Java does,
so as to avoid the extra typing. As for compatibility, I don't
really consider that a concern since much of EDL is already
incompatible with GML. You do have a point, though, that the
argument list box at the bottom would alleviate much of this
(but still, that's only useful if the caret is over the function
or its arguments - that could get annoying if you're trying to
read several lines of code, having to click on the
function/arguments to recall, rather than just reading it right
there). [IsmAvatar](User:IsmAvatar "wikilink") 12:59, 21 March
2011 (CDT)
-
As far as I know ENIGMA is quite compatible with GM. I would
love to be able to load any of my GM creations inside ENIGMA and
just compile them for that extra kick but speed, size etc. I
think that was one of the original goals. And right now it still
can work. I could agree that changing few functions will still
make this quite compatible and some easy search and replace
would fix that, but still.. a move like this seems weird.
Probably just because I have used GM for a long long time and I
know all of its functions and arguments by memory. So I can't
really get your point of view. And if you wrote some code, then
I think looking at it is good enough to figure which arguments
was which. Or at least pressing one time on the function for
caret to go there and show the arguments doesn't seem to be a
big deal to me either. But do as you wish. I don't say its a bad
idea, I just don't get. :D
--[HaRRiKiRi](User:HaRRiKiRi "wikilink") 16:23, 21 March 2011
(CDT)
-
I think you might have misunderstood. We don't want to eliminate
the outline argument. We aim to make it optional, and to offer
fill_ methods for people who would rather use those. So if you
write a game in GM using draw_\*(\*,outline,\*), it will still
work in ENIGMA. [IsmAvatar](User:IsmAvatar "wikilink") 17:13, 21
March 2011 (CDT)
-
That was kind of my original question that I vaguely stated
here:"Is it planned to still have draw_circle function that has
outline variable and just replace it on compile time with the
draw_circle_outline/draw_circle_fill?". So thanks for
clearing that up. :) --[HaRRiKiRi](User:HaRRiKiRi "wikilink")
17:46, 21 March 2011 (CDT)