Tooltips for roll expansion
Moderators: dorpond, trevor, Azhrei
Forum rules
PLEASE don't post images of your entire desktop, attach entire campaign files when only a single file is needed, or generally act in some other anti-social behavior.
PLEASE don't post images of your entire desktop, attach entire campaign files when only a single file is needed, or generally act in some other anti-social behavior.
- UntoldGlory
- Great Wyrm
- Posts: 1649
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Now that I understand that tooltips requries a <span> around the method, I'm not sure I favour having tooltips on {}.
D&D qualities are related inversely to those of Poker... and I love both.
http://www.yorkpoker.co.uk
http://www.yorkpoker.co.uk
- Naryt
- Dragon
- Posts: 517
- Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:55 am
- Location: Near a tree, in a cave, under a rock.
All things considered:Craig wrote:Then add tool tips to [] I agree with tool tips (after all I also submitted a patch to put them in) I just don't support enforcing them on every way of running a macro.Aria wrote:I want tooltips for everyone. I'm tired of the die roll clutter in the chat screen.
A third method for tooltipped rolls is needed. Changing {} would break multiple macros already in use. Changing [] would add needless clutter to macros already using the <!--[]-->{} convention. So I would recommend going with the third method being either {{}} or [[]] or ë÷÷ë
A wandering lost soul
I agree totally with this solution.Craig wrote:How about {} left as is, and [] is in tool tip?RPTroll wrote:Well, its not really needed for [] but is for {} since you want to use it to confirm the hidden roll. But if its serious breakage then maybe we should find another mechanism.
Or does someone really need to see the expanded output at all times?
If so would {} as is, [] for short output with details in tooltip and some
third alternate syntax for always display extended output work for everyone?
- Brigand
- Read-only User
- Posts: 1623
- Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:57 am
- Location: Nosy GM's can go frak themselves!
Any macro's using <!-- [ ] --> should switch them to { } instead. Like I said earlier, tooltips on anything is going to force everyone to rethink how they make their macros.Naryt wrote:All things considered:Craig wrote:Then add tool tips to [] I agree with tool tips (after all I also submitted a patch to put them in) I just don't support enforcing them on every way of running a macro.Aria wrote:I want tooltips for everyone. I'm tired of the die roll clutter in the chat screen.
A third method for tooltipped rolls is needed. Changing {} would break multiple macros already in use. Changing [] would add needless clutter to macros already using the <!--[]-->{} convention. So I would recommend going with the third method being either {{}} or [[]] or ë÷÷ë
- Naryt
- Dragon
- Posts: 517
- Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:55 am
- Location: Near a tree, in a cave, under a rock.
I would disagree. I have no intention of changing 200+ macros. Leaving [] and {} alone and adding {{}} or [[]] doesn't require a single macro rewrite.Aria wrote:Any macro's using <!-- [ ] --> should switch them to { } instead. Like I said earlier, tooltips on anything is going to force everyone to rethink how they make their macros.
A wandering lost soul
- Brigand
- Read-only User
- Posts: 1623
- Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:57 am
- Location: Nosy GM's can go frak themselves!
I don't want to be forced to use [[]] or {{}} to get tooltips. I want single brackets and braces to work, because those are what I and many people are used to using when typing. I don't use macros much. I don't want to rely on them.
So I type all my stuff in by hand. Either [ ] or { } should get tooltips. Anything extra added should be for the complex macro users.
So I type all my stuff in by hand. Either [ ] or { } should get tooltips. Anything extra added should be for the complex macro users.
People could do that if they wanted to, but since its all in comments and not withing a string or another tag the only harm would be a little extra information is commented out. Not sure if that would worry people or not just wanted to point it outAria wrote: Any macro's using <!-- [ ] --> should switch them to { } instead. Like I said earlier, tooltips on anything is going to force everyone to rethink how they make their macros.
Let me weigh in on this just a touch.
Tooltips, I think we have all agreed, ARE a MUCH needed addition to the tool. I prefer them. In fact, I've been hoping for them for a long time.
But I agree with craig...not having the bare number available as output will break certain usages horribly.
Aria, you don't like health bars in the chat windows...that's a personal preference and ONLY a personal preference. Besides which, things like HP altering macros, STATE altering macros, and such rely on the {} format as it is in from introduction to b40. The health bars as part of the state images (which, btw, I LOVE), are reliant on having this, I believe, and wrapping the output in a SPAN tage will destroy this.
So we do need a third syntax. The original solution was well-thought in terms of needs, but perhaps not in the actual syntax.
The discussion of what is necessary in terms of changing current macros to deal with this is accurate: regardless of what happens, this will require many, many macros to be rewritten: but having a GOOD text-editor handy will help with that!
I personally don't care what syntax we choose for opening & closing the method, but I find teh {{ }} and the [[]] both to be ugly. EVEN <<>> is prettier. If I had to CHOOSE, though, I think I would go with [[]] because it doesn't require the shift key! But that's just me.
Tooltips, I think we have all agreed, ARE a MUCH needed addition to the tool. I prefer them. In fact, I've been hoping for them for a long time.
But I agree with craig...not having the bare number available as output will break certain usages horribly.
Aria, you don't like health bars in the chat windows...that's a personal preference and ONLY a personal preference. Besides which, things like HP altering macros, STATE altering macros, and such rely on the {} format as it is in from introduction to b40. The health bars as part of the state images (which, btw, I LOVE), are reliant on having this, I believe, and wrapping the output in a SPAN tage will destroy this.
So we do need a third syntax. The original solution was well-thought in terms of needs, but perhaps not in the actual syntax.
The discussion of what is necessary in terms of changing current macros to deal with this is accurate: regardless of what happens, this will require many, many macros to be rewritten: but having a GOOD text-editor handy will help with that!
I personally don't care what syntax we choose for opening & closing the method, but I find teh {{ }} and the [[]] both to be ugly. EVEN <<>> is prettier. If I had to CHOOSE, though, I think I would go with [[]] because it doesn't require the shift key! But that's just me.
0+0=1, for very unstable CPUs.
- Brigand
- Read-only User
- Posts: 1623
- Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:57 am
- Location: Nosy GM's can go frak themselves!
No, they're not.Besides which, things like HP altering macros, STATE altering macros, and such rely on the {} format as it is in from introduction to b40. The health bars as part of the state images (which, btw, I LOVE), are reliant on having this, I believe, and wrapping the output in a SPAN tage will destroy this.
[HP=HP-DMG] works just as well as {HP=HP-DMG}.
[state.Bloodied=X] works just as well as {state.Bloodied=X}