ZZT editor improvements

[66]

*sigh*

why do some people want to take the hard way knowing an easier one :(

[zamros]

both md5 and sha-1 can easily hash quite a few mb/s, so speed is not an issue. and as there already are implementations available, i don't see why you'd want to write your own inferior xor-based hash function.

okay after reading this i'm pretty sure this entire thread is a big joke between all the posters to make up a whole bunch of shit that sounds real.

[Commodore]

HASH FUNCTION LOLZ!1!!

[66]

:ha:
zamros go away plz k thx bye

[Ryan Ferneau]

No, I agree with Zamros.

[20]

zamros is funny, but, ryan, don't post if you've nothing to contribute.

anyway, combuster, making your own hash function is harder. and if you really want to have a hash that fits in a few characters, you could always use some cyclic redundancy check. those can be made to fit into a single byte (though i wouldn't recommend this) and still be unstable enough to detect most changes in the generated code.

[SaxxonPike]

I say if editors are gonna end up like that with the % or whatever, it sounds like it's evolving towards the confusing world of MZX. Besides, ZZT's only gotten this far because of the lack of those features and the creativity of the people who created games for it.

[20]

nah, macros are different since you don't actually need to use them to make a good game. and of course there'd be wizards for creating them so you don't have to learn the % syntax stuff.

[105]

okay after reading this i'm pretty sure this entire thread is a big joke between all the posters to make up a whole bunch of shit that sounds real.

Actually, I'm seriously interested in implementing this. Don't expect anything right away, though -- school is pretty rough right now. Besides, this is just the planning stage. I think it's important to arrive at something that everyone will be happy with.

Okay, I concede to using MD5 hashes. The only thing that really matters is that we decide on something and stick to it. I only wanted to do XOR because it takes no more brain power than a for-loop.

[Commodore]

You'd have to have a routine that would replace the code when you check the board size. A condensed command utilising something like % would take up less memory than what would be replaced. Just so you don't run into run-time errors.

Also implementing iBag is not that good of an idea. You might as well just have an object library with the objects.

Templates sound good but using a blank board then deleting it would work just as well. Especially with kevedit's cut and paste feature.

One feature I'd still like to see is a line drawer.

Okay enough of me.

[SaxxonPike]

nah, macros are different since you don't actually need to use them to make a good game. and of course there'd be wizards for creating them so you don't have to learn the % syntax stuff.

it'll never catch on, and confuse more newbies, like this board does.

[105]

This would just be a semantic change, but what if we use the command "%use" in place of "%set". For example:

Code: Select all

%marquee 10
%use lborder <
%use rborder >
%use caps 1001
%use idles 3
Hello
%end marquee

And instead of "%set checksum 345A2", just "%checksum 245A2", since it's not really an option that the user should ever see.

I think this is starting to come together. Unless anyone objects in the next few days, I'm going to start another thread with a detailed proposal of exactly how this will work. Good?

[20]

well, the less space it'll take up in commented form, the better. we could just leave out all the wording and have it be more like..

Code: Select all

%marquee 10,AaaA,3
<
>
Hello
%

..in memory, that commented out and with the checksum and generated code added in the file, and in an editor as something like..

Code: Select all

> Marquee, press [Enter] to edit. Preview:
[insert (possibly animated) preview here]

where enter would open up a dialog with all the settings. this is just a proposal though, tell me what you think.

[66]

That code is VERY CONFUSING (and not like oop)
And if we add a new feature to the marquee program, how do we compose the %-OOP so it remains backward compatible?

Though the preview in the editor is something handy (though I think you should be able to switch off such behaviour)
Like in the object editor you have the text:
[F8] Insert program
[F9] %-oop wizard: on
Depending on what keys you want to use...

As for Bitman's question:
The Syntax is good, but still two notes:
1: What if a new program (option) is created, (like CyQ designes something like %use text1 Hello world %use text2 Created by CyQ) and another editor hasn't got that feature, it should then display the code with commented '%oop (and the same if the checksum doesn't match)
2: I haven't heard from the user-defined shorts, do we use:

Code: Select all

%make myshort
#if not blocked s shoot s
#if not blocked e shoot e
#if not blocked w shoot w
#if not blocked n shoot n
%end short
...
%myshort

and the %include to search shorts in other object's names? (and should it override existing programs if present), or do we leave that one out (i sure don't hope so)

[20]

of course it's confusing, that's why i proposed the dialog, which makes it even easier to use than the %set syntax. new options just get added to the end of the comma separated list, or as a new line if it's text. you leave it blank if it's the default so it remains somewhat backwards compatible.

if an editor doesn't understand an option, it should just leave the comments, yeah. and maybe display some kind of message, telling the user to upgrade.