ID:135895
Dec 23 2003, 12:26 pm
|
|
It shud giv a warning if you do not hav the text var set uv the objects that do hav icon var set (only turfs,objs,mobs). And also if at leest 1 has icon and text, and the uther objects hav only text set, then it givs a warning for that to. For example:
mob dus not giv a warning, and nether dus mob but mob givs: Warning no text for objects set and mob givs: Warning icon reqired | |
Crispy wrote:
If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that DM should give a warning when you have either the icon or text set, but not both. I think that's a terrible idea; roguelike games would be forced to have icons (thereby removing their roguelike-ness), and graphical games would be forced to have text (which for many of those games is sheer lunacy, as text mode would enable you to see and interact with objects that you normally couldn't). No! Thay ar NOT forced to hav icons, but if 1 object has a icon and uther objects with text without icons, then it givs a warning. If NO objects hav icons, it will not giv a warning. But all objects must hav text set. For objects you ar not supost to interact, set invisibility=101. If no objects hav text or icon set, then no warning becuse it has no map. If ther is a map, and you put objects on the map with no text set (exsept areas), it will also giv a warning. It will still compile with all uv this warnings, so you ar not FORCED to change enything, but it is a very importent sugestin to make you change it. | |
You seem to have skipped over what Crispy said about the difficulty of trying to understand you.
Don't. This garbled nonsense really has to stop if you expect people to take your posts seriously, let alone read them at all. Please make an effort to be understood, and stop just outright ignoring people who bring this up. It's important for forumgoers to respect each other; if you're not going to show enough respect to try to be clear, nobody's going to respect you in return. Lummox JR | |
Wow, that post was actually slightly intelligible. Was that on purpose, or via an accidental slip of the fingers?
I still think it's not necessary. If you've missed out an icon or text setting, then you'll notice as soon as you look at the object (or look where it should be, as the case may be). And yes, although it will still compile fine with warnings, having warnings constantly hanging around is distracting and can hide warnings that you actually need to pay attention to. Not to mention the nightmares of handling inheritance. If a type doesn't have its icon set, but it inherits its icon from a parent type, do you give the warning then? You'd think an easy solution would be to not give the warning in that case, but then what if it's meant to have its own icon rather than the inherited icon? The programmer, used to being coddled by the warnings, might not even bother to check if the icon is displaying correctly. And playtesters wouldn't necessarily know that it was meant to have a different icon. In short; it's more work for Tom (and possibly Dan) for little benefit. You wouldn't have needed to post that clarification if you stopped deliberately garbling your posts. Just stop it. (And if you ignore both this paragraph and Lummox's post, we'll know for sure that you're doing it on purpose and trying to pass it off as natural bad spelling.) | |
Crispy wrote:
You wouldn't have needed to post that clarification if you stopped deliberately garbling your posts. Just stop it. (And if you ignore both this paragraph and Lummox's post, we'll know for sure that you're doing it on purpose and trying to pass it off as natural bad spelling.) Prove it. | |
I can't prove anything, and you know it. But his mispelling isn't consistent with the theory that English isn't his first language, and that he learnt the sound first and then guessed the spelling ("uv"? What the hell? Who spells "of" like that? And in what language apart from English does "uv" sound remotely like "of"?). His English vocabulary is too large for him to make huge, consistent mistakes like that. And he's had lots of chances to learn the correct spelling, even just on this forum. In my opinion, he's definitely putting it on deliberately.
| |
I have plenty of uses for objs that don't need an icon... some of which are never intended to be placed on the map because they're used for verb handling or weird things like that... I don't want to have to choose between assigning them a meaningless icon or sifting through meaningless warnings every time I compile.
The bottom line is, warnings are there to let you know when you've made something that can really only be a mistake. In this case, what's a mistake in one game is intentional in another, so it's not an appropriate place for the compiler to speak up. The present system allows you to use text or icons or neither or both for any object you want, with the compiler keeping its opinions to itself. | |
Hedgemistress wrote:
The present system allows you to use text or icons or neither or both for any object you want, with the compiler keeping its opinions to itself. That just gave me an idea for a gimmick for some game. You know, switching between text and icon mode. Like in Aliens vs. Predator, when you play as the predator. | |
Mrhat99au wrote:
Crispy wrote: The point has been proven effectively already, but let's review:
| |
Lummox JR wrote:
Mrhat99au wrote:
Look in ZZoComputers "People Entry". He has a website, and the spelling is like on the fourms. I agree that he probably isnt listening to what we have to say, but it seems a bit much, scrambiling his posts so consitently. I would never do such a thing, seems like a big waste of time if you ask me. I have no more input into thise, but please could the Byond mods, so laying into people so harshly for minor spelling errors. Its fine for big spelling errors. Its just really annoying seeing people starting flame wars about spelling. -Mrhat99au | |
Lummox JR wrote:
But there's no other remotely logical explanation for that scrambling; all signs point quite solidly--by themselves, let alone together--to a deliberate act. One of my favorite restaurants is Max's Opera Cafe, where the waiters are also singers. (I'm there for the food -- the singing actually just annoys me -- but it's relevant to the story...) One night while I was there a waiter did this awful caterwauling rendition of "Over the Rainbow", and when he was done he got a large positive reaction. I was confused about this until it was explained to me that he had hit the wrong note for every single note of the song, which is actually quite hard to do. Impossible to do by accident, even by someone who can't really sing. In the same way it's impossible to mis-spell almost all your words, certainly in the pattern displayed here, most especially by someone who doesn't know the language. There is some wacko critic (feminist or literary, I forget which) who believes all actual "meaning" especially in prose is a "construct" and therefore to be avoided, and would prefer to make each sentence basically meaningless so that you are always self-aware and don't fall into the trap of assuming anything. This spelling trick reminds me a bit of that. For the couple of posts I read...after the first couple, I gave up. As someone who has had a love of words and reading all my life, I'm incapable of reading this tortured crap, so I don't. And this post is the most I'm going to go on about it, because I don't have the energy to repeatedly flame stuff I can instead ignore. | |
Hedgemistress wrote:
I have plenty of uses for objs that don't need an icon... some of which are never intended to be placed on the map because they're used for verb handling or weird things like that... I don't want to have to choose between assigning them a meaningless icon or sifting through meaningless warnings every time I compile. No. Mi instrucsens ar clear (to me enyways, and you must reed it, plese!). If you do not hav text or icon asined, and the object is not on the map (if it is on the map, at leest the parent object has to hav it asined) then it dus not make a warning. | |
Mrhat99au wrote:
Look in ZZoComputers "People Entry". He has a website, and the spelling is like on the fourms. That really says nothing at all, except that he's willing to keep up the same asinine charade on his Web site. I agree that he probably isnt listening to what we have to say, but it seems a bit much, scrambiling his posts so consitently. I would never do such a thing, seems like a big waste of time if you ask me. Hence my womdering why he does it. But it's definitely deliberate, even if it makes no sense to do it. I have no more input into thise, but please could the Byond mods, so laying into people so harshly for minor spelling errors. Its fine for big spelling errors. If "uv" isn't a big spelling error, no such thing exists. I'm not laying into Zzo for mistakes, either, but for being deliberately obtuse and quite obnoxious about it. People learn from their mistakes. That Zzo hasn't learned a thing in all this time means he's not making mistakes. Its just really annoying seeing people starting flame wars about spelling. If this was an actual flame war, or if it was just about his being a poor speller, I might agree with you. But even poor spellers pick up a thing or two here and there, and by now anyone in Zzo's position who was honestly just bad at English would be making a conscious effort to be understood. The real issue here is respect, which Zzo isn't showing for anyone else on the forum when he acts this way. I owe it to you not to speak in gibberish, just as you owe it to me, and we both to everyone else; this is not beyond Zzo's comprehension, but just something he's obviously quite unwilling to do. Lummox JR | |
If you do not hav text or icon asined, and the object is not on the map (if it is on the map, at leest the parent object has to hav it asined) then it dus not make a warning. That only makes your idea more useless, in that it would fail to catch many actual errors and would still "warn" on things that are intentional and legimate uses of the system. First, there are many uses for iconless objects that are placed on the map and there's no reason to involve invisibility, especially if invisibility levels are being used as an integral part of the game in some other way. Say you have a spell or effect that's supposed to reveal all objects and items with invisibility in a certain radius, regardless of their level, and you have a use for invisibility level 101 as an in-game effect that this spell can counter. If you're forced to use invisibility 101 for "iconless"/inaccessible objects, you have to code in a bunch of exceptions. It should never be necessary to code around warnings that are designed to catch "mistakes" that are only a mistake in one set of specific circumstances but for all the compiler knows are useful and deliberate design decisions. It should be the designer's DECISION and thus the designer's RESPONSIBILITY for figuring out if an object needs an icon/text, and the compiler should keep its opinions to itself. Second, there are even more situations where an object is intended to end up on the map but would not be present at compile and load time. Trapping for iconless objects on the map would not catch these... and yet these are the only situations where such a user error as this system would catch is remotely possible! Are you telling me you could possibly, conceivably, imaginably ever put an iconless (and thus invisible) mob or obj on the map and NOT notice that the thing you had tried to draw isn't showing up? No. Mi instrucsens ar clear (to me enyways, and you must reed it, plese!). I did read it. Let me explain something to you: if a communication is only clear to the person who makes it, it's not communication. It's just plain "munication." What good does it do to write something that's clear to you but gibberish to everyone else? What have you accomplished by even writing it? If I make up a language and write "%^eeld,mnal aj toajalj, blokn4!", have I actually communicated anything? Nope. Some words (many words!) in any programming language are predefined and will trigger an error, fail to compile, or fail to perform if they're not spelled correctly. The very fact that you're capable of programming rules out the idea that this is some kind of highly specific yet highly esoteric learning disorder. The idea that you're a foreign speaker has already been dealt with and discarded. I don't really care one way or the other... it's always been obvious to me that you spell this way by choice, but the choice is yours. I'm sure you have your reasons. I'm equally sure it's not a good reason, but that's beside the point. Still, that doesn't mean you can act like it's anyone else's fault but yours that your ideas come out as garbage... In short, you're entitled to spell like a defective chipmunk if that floats your boat. You're NOT entitled to blame me for your inability to communicate. | |
I couldn't agree more with Crispy. Why write your GIVE like so: GIV; Don't give me that "It's shorter to write" mess because it's not hard to add an e, and if you do people will think you have a brain.
Siientx | |
If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that DM should give a warning when you have either the icon or text set, but not both. I think that's a terrible idea; roguelike games would be forced to have icons (thereby removing their roguelike-ness), and graphical games would be forced to have text (which for many of those games is sheer lunacy, as text mode would enable you to see and interact with objects that you normally couldn't).