Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Josh @ Dreamland

Announcements / Re: Another choice.
« on: March 12, 2010, 07:30:42 pm »
This is only while declaring them, which is entirely optional. GM offers no such functionality.
Here, "local" means "object-local." GM doesn't offer a method of declaring things, it leaves them all var. ENIGMA does this by default; declaring them is an extension of GML. "local var" does essentially nothing.

"The whole `var` class thing doesn't work the same way as GM's `var` keyword."
Care to back this up with examples?

Website Bugs / Re: Too much forum crashing
« on: March 12, 2010, 03:47:57 pm »
Yeah. Good thing I'm not paying money for this server or anything, or that might actually piss me off. >_>

Announcements / Re: Another choice.
« on: March 12, 2010, 03:45:24 pm »
The 11th plague of Egypt--
Neither interfere with porting GM games to ENIGMA; it's a new concept to GM users and it can be interpreted either way.

Some languages are fuck ugly and require too much typing AND too many shift presses. >_<

Announcements / Re: Another choice.
« on: March 12, 2010, 01:52:45 pm »
Well, I'd take localv over that. Two less letters, and such. May as well just go with local, in the end.

Announcements / Re: Another choice.
« on: March 12, 2010, 12:22:27 pm »
Vote changing's enabled, I believe. Feel free.

There was another problem with operator++, but I don't think we need a poll for that.

Announcements / Re: Another choice.
« on: March 12, 2010, 11:17:19 am »

Yep. Hence the poll.

I'd rather not distinguish between events, though.

Announcements / Re: Another choice.
« on: March 12, 2010, 10:51:08 am »
That was what I was thinking at first, but then I realized that I would be saying "var int" a lot more often than "local int." And if I forgot the "var," I'd be in danger of bizarre performance.


for (var int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)

If ENIGMA moved the initialization of the local in the second example to the constructor of the object (as it should, technically), "i" would resume at 10 and the loop wouldn't do anything. That would be bad. :v:

Not to mention you'd be wasting the memory if you forgot the var. Though, that goes both ways.

Not anymore, I don't think. GM7(?) implements this syntax:

global var a;

Which they advertise as eliminating the need to use "global." in future references.
Implementing "local int a" would be no different.

Announcements / Another choice.
« on: March 12, 2010, 09:45:55 am »
In R3, you were allowed to say "int a;" in a code piece to declare "a" as C++'s fastest type. To declare it as a local variable to the object, however, I made you say "localv int a;". Well, that system was brutally easy to implement. However, it's not so convenient to type.

When I started the project, I was enamored by how similar C++ and GML were. I saw "var" as a data type; GM's only data type.  It was only logical that var should be a class.

However, long, long ago, NoodleNog suggested that to declare script-local variables, of type "int" for example, you should use "var int" rather than just "int." This makes it a bit of a hassle to declare script-locals, but then actual object-local variables are simply declared as "int."

He was presenting this to me as I suggested ambiguating the word "local" to use. Locals would be declared one-time, preferably in create events but technically in any event, as "local int a;".

My first choice was actually to have Ism add an event for such declarations; in this event, you would have only your locals declared. It seems rather unprofessional in retrospect, but would technically be as easy as adding semicolons and copying over the code to the front of the structure. :P It would make my life easier, but it would leave a bad feeling in my stomach and would cause Ism a good amount of work, possibly delaying the project further.

I was going to just go with the first option (which I will cast a vote on this time), but I figured I'd give you all a chance to toss it around and/or shoot flames at it first.

To clarify, no outcome of this poll will affect backwards-compatibility with Game Maker. This is purely an extension of the language. Undeclared variables will be treated as local vars. "localv var" and "local var" are meaningless.

Anyway, same drill as last time.

Announcements / Re: I hate the last ten days before a release.
« on: March 12, 2010, 09:35:02 am »
The 11th plague of Egypt, retep998--
When R4 is compiling again, I'll match the list of functions from the parser against the list of functions that need done, and anyone who can code can look for a function or set of functions they feel they are capable of implementing. If you're not good with community projects, I can look them over and implement them for you.

Fetching the list of unfinished functions after that will be as simple as matching the list with the tree again.

Those who do have experience with SVN, I can probably give you permissions to commit code.

Announcements / Re: Quick Poll
« on: March 12, 2010, 09:30:52 am »
They'll be stored in the file format for when ENIGMA queries for them.

I'm going to have a check box / radio button to decide whether to treat } as }; or not. It'll be defaulted to };. This way, we don't have users pissed off about the only feature of EDL that depends on newlines.

Announcements / Re: I hate the last ten days before a release.
« on: March 12, 2010, 08:37:01 am »
Same difference.

Announcements / Re: I hate the last ten days before a release.
« on: March 11, 2010, 03:22:09 pm »
I'll need a bunch of people who know a good amount of C++ shortly. Will help when mass-producing GM's dumber functions.

Am hoping it's impressive (though not the first thing I release for testing, which will just be a spruced up R3 [extra parenthesis for no reason]).

Git does look rather nice, but I have yet to set up whatever key it wants me to have in order to use it, so that's a hassle. It's also not on SourceForge, so I have to change habits to use it.

Announcements / I hate the last ten days before a release.
« on: March 11, 2010, 08:52:16 am »
Consistently, the last ten days before a release grow to twenty and then maybe thirty due to lack of coordination. It's a wonder I managed to hit within 15 hours of R3's deadline, honestly.

As has been reported, the C parser is done. There's been no reason to modify it so far, and I'm hoping never to run into such a reason.
A great deal of the other two parsers is done; more than 75% of each.
I'm to the point where I would like to start testing everything working together before progressing on either parser, however, we have a problem with that.

LateralGM has three members.
Ism's on spring break, spending time with people somewhere. I don't want to ruin it for her; she could probably use the vacation after the earthquake following the release of GM8 (which honestly, I wasn't expecting at all; don't know if she was or not).
Quadduc is apparently working on other (somewhat cooler, admittedly) projects.
Clam is pretending to go to college (Really, he's running a social experiment to see what the worst thing he can wake up to is after passing out drunk).

The good news is, Ism intends to help during boring times of spring break, and to actually come back afterward.  :v:

As for me, my college courses are on spring break as well. High school ones aren't, so I have to show up to them for two hours a day anyway. What's annoying, though, is being unable to hook ENIGMA up to LGM without Ism; there's just been too much change... And it's so close to just being done...

Presently, Ism is trying to get a simple DLL working from Java. I'm hoping JNA will allow ENIGMA to ask LGM for resource information instead of relying on it to be sent... We'll see how it turns out. The last phase could be messy.

I guess I'll continue to work half-blindly on my parser... I do wish for the batch passing of scripts to it, but whatever. There's also a timing issue with serp. He's done some impressive work on ENIGMA's library while I was working on those parsers. They're on GIT, which I hate working with. I don't know when to check out, is the problem. Having a revision system is supposed to fix that, I thought. ;_; 'S what we get for having two of them.

I'm running a couple checks for old mistakes that I corrected long ago but never released a patch for. Heh, what a ride. It's nice to be this close again.

Announcements / Re: Quick Poll
« on: March 09, 2010, 02:33:36 pm »
I meant the poll. I can't just have a checkbox for whether you want the compiler to bitch about that; you're bound to make the mistake again even once you're aware anyway.

I see what you mean now, and I like it.

Of the 14 who voted, 10 thought that it should either be the user's responsibility or that immediate instantiation should be disallowed; about a 50-50 split between those. That being the case, I think it'd behoove me to make it a checkbox between the two, defaulted to the one with more votes. So, by default, } will be };, but that can be turned off.

Announcements / Re: Quick Poll
« on: March 09, 2010, 02:16:25 pm »
Ah, only when there's a newline, hm... That can probably be arranged, but I think it'd confuse the hell out of people due to potentially appearing inconsistent. I'll add an option for it.

That's basically the principle on which JavaScript was founded, though, so...