v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.
Editing User talk:Jifodus/Dwarf Fortress Utility Framework
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in.
Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 294: | Line 294: | ||
I think I've covered just about everything worth covering. | I think I've covered just about everything worth covering. | ||
-- [[User:Jifodus|Jifodus]] 04:24, 13 December 2007 (EST) | -- [[User:Jifodus|Jifodus]] 04:24, 13 December 2007 (EST) | ||
− | ::Forgot to point out something that may caused misunderstanding, everything that was before the "additional notes" part of my comments actually refers to the persistent data format rather than the run-time format :) I just choose something that is similar to the lua structs that you used. When defining the persistent data, I think it would be nice to allow various ways of doing the same thing to suit potential users. And I think even if the specification data is defined inline, the framework you have should be able to resolve it nicely during parsing (e.g. when encountering an inlined map, just create that map first, give it some name/reference and then continue the parsing the current map with the new map id, as if it was defined much earlier). It can all be resolved nicely into separate entries in your Type map. | + | ::Forgot to point out something that may caused misunderstanding, everything that was before the "additional notes" part of my comments actually refers to the persistent data format rather than the run-time format :) I just choose something that is similar to the lua structs that you used. When defining the persistent data, I think it would be nice to allow various ways of doing the same thing to suit potential users. And I think even if the specification data is defined inline, the framework you have should be able to resolve it nicely during parsing (e.g. when encountering an inlined map, just create that map first, give it some name/reference and then continue the parsing the current map with the new map id, as if it was defined much earlier). It can all be resolved nicely into separate entries in your Type map. [[User:Sphr|Sphr]] 04:56, 13 December 2007 (EST) |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |