ZZT editor improvements

105 · Post by **105** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:19 pm

I just spent an hour thoroughly answering all your questions, and then my browser crashed. I had copied everything to the clipboard in case that happened, but then every application I tried pasting to crashed too. So you get the short version instead:

The code has to be human readable. A dialog would be cool, but not just yet. We really aren't wasting that much space.

Shortcuts will use the Com's example sytax, except perhaps %make should be %define, or %shortcut. There will also be the short form:

%myshort:OOP

Yes, %include will be used to access shortcuts in other objects.

Just comment any unknown options, like CyQ says.

CyQ gave me an idea for the caps filter. We can let each of these be equivalent:

%use caps 10110
%use caps AaAAa
%use caps HeLLo

rozzer?

Would it be useful to have an option (or external program) to preprocess a world, but instead of leaving all the % commands in as comments, just strip them out completely. It would produce smaller worlds and possible avoid exceeding the maximum board size. Will ZZT'ers have the discipline to hang onto the original world, or will they just ditch it for the new one?

20 · Post by 20 » Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:34 pm

aye, fine.

i don't think an option or program to remove the macro info would be too useful, it would only confuse people. actually, i think this %set/use stuff will confuse people as well, almost as much as my syntax. which is why i think you really need a dialog of some sort, to make the macro coding transparent to the user.

Commodore · Post by **Commodore** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 10:44 pm

I don't think it will be a feature that everyone will use, so it doesn't matter if you confuse a few people with it.

Ryan Ferneau · Post by **Ryan Ferneau** » Sat Oct 25, 2003 4:49 am

...or does it? <doo>

136 · Post by **136** » Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:15 pm

CyQ wrote:aye, fine.

i don't think an option or program to remove the macro info would be too useful, it would only confuse people. actually, i think this %set/use stuff will confuse people as well, almost as much as my syntax. which is why i think you really need a dialog of some sort, to make the macro coding transparent to the user.

You shud hav both options so you can enter the macro in the text editer or macro dialog.

66 · Post by 66 » Wed Nov 05, 2003 5:35 am

bitman wrote: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?

I think the time has come - the thread started looking dead :(

As for zzo38 and CyQ, %-oop is optional. If it confuses you, you don't NEED to use it. Dialogs could be helpful of course, but that's the decision of the editor's programmmer. And if you wish to start a discussion about standardised dialogs, just go ahead.