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.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 »
406
Proposals / Re: Script Editor Features
« on: July 17, 2011, 07:43:49 pm »
actually never mind make it default :p
407
Function Peer Review / GM's Data Structures
« on: July 16, 2011, 12:05:09 pm »
OK I've done all of GM's data structures now. I haven't fully tested all of the functions so let me know if anything doesn't work, doesn't mimic GM's behaviour or of course can be made more efficient.
There is a small incompatibility from GM that when a data structure is destroyed in GM it leaves a gap in the index value (this is replicated), but then when GM creates a new data structure afterwards it fills in the gaps of the indexes (which has not been replicated because it seems retarded). This shouldn't cause any problems though unless people are calling data structure indexes as literals or something.
And there is a also slight incompatibility with ds_queues when you have multiple priorities of the same value. The way I have handled it, it will always return the lowest value with multiple the priorities the same. The way GM handles it, is it returns the value which was first added to the priority queue. This should unlikely cause any issues though as you shouldn't be setting priorities the same anyway.
Anyway code posted on pastebin (because I'm way over the forum character limit): http://pastebin.com/earWGw8Z
There is a small incompatibility from GM that when a data structure is destroyed in GM it leaves a gap in the index value (this is replicated), but then when GM creates a new data structure afterwards it fills in the gaps of the indexes (which has not been replicated because it seems retarded). This shouldn't cause any problems though unless people are calling data structure indexes as literals or something.
And there is a also slight incompatibility with ds_queues when you have multiple priorities of the same value. The way I have handled it, it will always return the lowest value with multiple the priorities the same. The way GM handles it, is it returns the value which was first added to the priority queue. This should unlikely cause any issues though as you shouldn't be setting priorities the same anyway.
Anyway code posted on pastebin (because I'm way over the forum character limit): http://pastebin.com/earWGw8Z
408
Proposals / Re: Function approval process
« on: July 16, 2011, 04:40:22 am »
Josh was fundamentally against it, he didn't want unlicensed code on the wiki and there were some other things on a list which I don't remember.
409
Proposals / Re: Function approval process
« on: July 15, 2011, 08:39:09 am »
OK then. How about we just post functions in the peer review forum as normal to be scrutinised, then if anyone notices functions there which seem ready to commit they can submit them to github for testing and to be committed.
410
Proposals / Re: Function approval process
« on: July 15, 2011, 06:39:17 am »
So now the function peer review process has been removed from the wiki I guess we need another system? There still does not seem to be a consensus though or anyone pushing to implement a particular system.
Maybe, since it really only seems to be the actual developers at the moment doing anything it is not actually worth the effort of making a general peer review system and one would only actually slow things down?
Maybe, since it really only seems to be the actual developers at the moment doing anything it is not actually worth the effort of making a general peer review system and one would only actually slow things down?
411
Proposals / Re: Function approval process
« on: July 15, 2011, 06:20:25 am »
OK to clarify everything. I have run the bot again to put the implemented functions on the wiki.
But the peer review system on the wiki has been abandoned. The functions will now stand there only for documentation. A page has been made on the wiki as a guide to the format the function should ideally be documented with: http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Function:Documentation
Note that I am now tagging all functions with either {{Function:GM}} or {{Function:ENIGMA}} so there can be a clear distinction which functions are new to ENIGMA and didn't exist in GM. This then also categorises the functions.
All the functions I have just added to the wiki have been tagged with {{Function:GM}}. However all the ones I ran previously haven't, these are all still using the deprecated {{Unimplemented}} template tag from the peer review system. So when documenting any of older added functions you should add the {{Function:GM}} tag in yourself.
Also make note that all undocumented functions have been categorised to: http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:Function:Needs_documenting. With the older added functions I have changed the {{Unimplemented}} tag to categorise the functions there, with the newly added functions I have just added the line [[Category:Function:Needs_documenting]] to categorise them. Thus when you have finished documenting a functions you should remove either the {{Unimplemented}} tag or the [[Category:Function:Needs_documenting]] so they are not categorised as undocumented. In hind-sight I should have probably added another template for the newly added functions instead of using [[Category:Function:Needs_documenting]] or I suppose I could have even just reused the {{Unimplemented}} template again, but too late now
But the peer review system on the wiki has been abandoned. The functions will now stand there only for documentation. A page has been made on the wiki as a guide to the format the function should ideally be documented with: http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Function:Documentation
Note that I am now tagging all functions with either {{Function:GM}} or {{Function:ENIGMA}} so there can be a clear distinction which functions are new to ENIGMA and didn't exist in GM. This then also categorises the functions.
All the functions I have just added to the wiki have been tagged with {{Function:GM}}. However all the ones I ran previously haven't, these are all still using the deprecated {{Unimplemented}} template tag from the peer review system. So when documenting any of older added functions you should add the {{Function:GM}} tag in yourself.
Also make note that all undocumented functions have been categorised to: http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:Function:Needs_documenting. With the older added functions I have changed the {{Unimplemented}} tag to categorise the functions there, with the newly added functions I have just added the line [[Category:Function:Needs_documenting]] to categorise them. Thus when you have finished documenting a functions you should remove either the {{Unimplemented}} tag or the [[Category:Function:Needs_documenting]] so they are not categorised as undocumented. In hind-sight I should have probably added another template for the newly added functions instead of using [[Category:Function:Needs_documenting]] or I suppose I could have even just reused the {{Unimplemented}} template again, but too late now
412
General ENIGMA / Re: Questions on EDL and ENIGMA
« on: July 11, 2011, 07:36:53 am »
Hmm create a language board then
413
General ENIGMA / Re: Questions on EDL and ENIGMA
« on: July 10, 2011, 06:40:11 pm »
Have the ENIGMA forums been turned into a grammar board? I never got the notice...
414
Function Peer Review / Re: GML: All draw_text functions +(string_width, _height, _width_ext, _height_ext)
« on: July 09, 2011, 11:05:21 am »
There should be functions added for draw_get_halign / valign these are missing from gml.
415
Proposals / Re: Function approval process
« on: June 28, 2011, 05:51:39 am »
As for this approval process I don't know how it is going to proceed from here.
As the wiki is a lot less frequented than the forum I suggest that a pinned topic should be posted in the peer review forum about the procedure. When writing a new function, a user should post their code in the corresponding wiki function page then make a post in the peer review forum linking to it. Then the function can be discussed on the forum or the wiki page. The user will need to keep the function up to date on the wiki, following the peer review tag system. With function sets/related functions only one post should be made on the forum for discussion.
There is still somewhat of a problem though that without an actual bot in place reporting to the forum, developers are unlikely to notice what new functions have been tagged on the wiki as under review, testing or to commit.
As the wiki is a lot less frequented than the forum I suggest that a pinned topic should be posted in the peer review forum about the procedure. When writing a new function, a user should post their code in the corresponding wiki function page then make a post in the peer review forum linking to it. Then the function can be discussed on the forum or the wiki page. The user will need to keep the function up to date on the wiki, following the peer review tag system. With function sets/related functions only one post should be made on the forum for discussion.
There is still somewhat of a problem though that without an actual bot in place reporting to the forum, developers are unlikely to notice what new functions have been tagged on the wiki as under review, testing or to commit.
416
Proposals / Re: Function approval process
« on: June 28, 2011, 05:32:01 am »
Yes, that is what I had in mind. Every function will have it's individual page and for function sets/related functions there will be a separate main page outlining the overall system. The main page (in this case http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Drawing_text) should be made into a category and all the functions which fall under it should be categorized to it.
Note I haven't yet added the implemented functions to the wiki, only the unimplemented ones. I will be doing those soon, note that if you add a page for any implemented functions before I do the bot will go over them when it's run.
Note I haven't yet added the implemented functions to the wiki, only the unimplemented ones. I will be doing those soon, note that if you add a page for any implemented functions before I do the bot will go over them when it's run.
417
General ENIGMA / Re: few questions and an offer
« on: June 27, 2011, 03:11:08 am »i placed it in the room, and the whole room is just black. did the same thing in game maker, and it works...Sounds like it is my background_showcolor issue (post #8, part 1) which I reported and still hasn't been fixed yet for some reason (I remember Josh saying it was too small a change to commit).
More on the advantages of user ENIGMA over GM take a look at the wiki page: http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/ENIGMA
At this time EDL is practically completely compatible with GML however understand though that there are still many functions and several key systems from GM not yet implemented, these are being worked on though and when done ENIGMA will leave GM completely in the dark. There is a todo list up on the wiki which shows most of the main things not yet implemented: http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/ENIGMA:Todo
Also if you want talk to further to people most are on the IRC, there is a link to webchat if you do not have an IRC client installed.
418
Proposals / Re: Function approval process
« on: May 30, 2011, 10:02:12 am »
Will try and bump this topic back up. I'll post useful links for the wiki bot api while I'm here as well, for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Login
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Bulk_Page_Creator
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Patrick_Nagel/Login_with_snoopy_post-1.15.3
As has been the case for a while everything is ready to go, we just need to write the bot to populate the functions on the wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Login
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Bulk_Page_Creator
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Patrick_Nagel/Login_with_snoopy_post-1.15.3
As has been the case for a while everything is ready to go, we just need to write the bot to populate the functions on the wiki.
419
Proposals / Re: Official Tutorials
« on: April 08, 2011, 09:45:20 am »
These types of questions would be posted in the ENIGMA FAQ or ENGIMA user manual.
Some of those topics like that would also be referenced in the moving from GM to EDL page.
Some of those topics like that would also be referenced in the moving from GM to EDL page.
420
Issues Help Desk / Re: Troubles with mingw32-make
« on: March 30, 2011, 08:35:06 am »
Maybe it would be better if someone wrote clear instructions on how to install on the wiki:
http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/ENIGMA:Installing
Then people would know wtf they're doing.
http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/ENIGMA:Installing
Then people would know wtf they're doing.