jean i think you miss understood, about
ATK
in most games ive played in here the states, card games, roleplaying games, ect
the acronym "ATK" is often used for "ATTACK" which makes sense,
in the case of wagic however, we are defining an attacker as "ATK" in one section,
as "DEFENSER" in another, (which mind you a defenser in NOT the blocker) it is the creature being blocked AKA the "attacker"
as "attacker" in another....
do you see where this starts to get overly complicated?
they could have all just been written "Attacker"...
with extra consideration for "ATK" since this to me means "Attack" and close to "attackpower" then anything else.
in no way am i saying that the code is bad, wrong ect...but the use of shorthand and abbrivations, and inconsistencies in naming scheme make ALOT of the code hard to pick up even for a professional coder. i think mike can say something about this....mike mind telling us how the target chooser changling issue panned out for you? how hard was it finding out how the target system worked, and how hard would it have been if i didnt walk you through some of the functions to explain (what i gruesomely disected) what they did?
i will say, abbriavtion are fine this is candy, sure...however...mindlessly doing it just to do it, makes no sense and in no way is a 2 letter abbriavtion good, i dont see how you can make sense of this. even if it only survives for 1 line, thats no excuse to use "ActAtKr" to mean "activeAttacker" much less using something like "AK" for it...im a noob and this is how i feel, at what point do professional coders just stop giving an "f"?
also i see that its clear that you(the general public) think im saying make it easier for a noob to pick up...HA hardly....
hey mike, did you ever finish that changeling project? how about multitarget?
EXACTLY....even a professional coder has a hard time understanding some of the more cryptically written functions.
i bet if it didnt use so much of this, what i like to call "comfy coding" and infact what this book im reading calls "comfy coding"
(
learning stuff already)
it would be ALOT easier for even people like Moot and Mike to do their massive projects without having to spend 20-30 mins trying to find out what an acronym stands for by stepping through the processes.
also about
m
k
yes....i KNOW what theyre for, this is great, however....how is it that it makes sense to give only SOME constants a "K" and SOME member functions a "m"..ect ect....do you see my point? if someone, in this case Mike, wants to start marking all constants with a "K" then he should take it opon himself to insure that the rest of the code is consistent with his new "K" deal....understand?....otherwise he needs to remove his "K"...so it really is 2 roads, remove them or update the source so all constants match up with the new system.
its like i keep reading from you guys, just because BEFORE it was ok to frankstain the code with all sorts of styles and formats, does this mean we should keep doing so? such as adding a new way to mark constants using "K" infront without updating the other 100+ constants already in wagic?
