Woo Hoo!giliath wrote:If you read this far, say woo hoo.
(drink)
Moderators: dorpond, trevor, Azhrei
Woo Hoo and a question. Will there be a program document that includes all the function names and their uses? I'm already fairly overwhelmed by all the macro stuff, and can only imagine my head 'splodin' when I start trying to use the scripting. Documentation is a major necessity for me to really understand stuff. Especially docs that are in one place rather than scattered all over.giliath wrote:If you read this far, say woo hoo.
...what he said.BigO wrote:Woo Hoo!giliath wrote:If you read this far, say woo hoo.
(drink)
The idea is that the GM decides which script functions get included with their campiagns. The script functions to choose from would largely come from the community-at-large, not from the devs.RPMiller wrote:Will there be a program document that includes all the function names and their uses?
I have already given Trevor a way of asking the parser for all of the functions. The javascript functions (when registered) will have a way for the function designers to add aliases and descriptions so that they will all show up in the function list Trevor is putting together.RPMiller wrote:Woo Hoo and a question. Will there be a program document that includes all the function names and their uses? I'm already fairly overwhelmed by all the macro stuff, and can only imagine my head 'splodin' when I start trying to use the scripting. Documentation is a major necessity for me to really understand stuff. Especially docs that are in one place rather than scattered all over.giliath wrote:If you read this far, say woo hoo.
The file format is not changing, just some of the way we store data within the file. The files are currently .zips that contain XML and raw files. The will be changed to be .zips that contain JSON and raw files where JSON replaces the current XML only.Azhrei wrote:So what's the plan with storing images in JSON? Would the image be converted to some encoded format and then the decode function would be called inside the object definition?
Fair enough. So we'll be depending heavily on function designers to document their functions. Any way to force that?giliath wrote:I have already given Trevor a way of asking the parser for all of the functions. The javascript functions (when registered) will have a way for the function designers to add aliases and descriptions so that they will all show up in the function list Trevor is putting together.
Considering the open community nature of the project, the only obvious way to force it is to vote with your feet... We have enough people creating macros, etc., now that if you aren't finding the functions developed by CoderX documented to your satisfaction, there will probably be something equivalent from CoderY. And any scripts available to the community can be edited by anyone in the community, so a really useful but poorly documented function can always be documented by someone else if needed.RPMiller wrote:Fair enough. So we'll be depending heavily on function designers to document their functions. Any way to force that?
Get out the beat sticks and the cases of mountain dew?RPMiller wrote:Fair enough. So we'll be depending heavily on function designers to document their functions. Any way to force that?giliath wrote:I have already given Trevor a way of asking the parser for all of the functions. The javascript functions (when registered) will have a way for the function designers to add aliases and descriptions so that they will all show up in the function list Trevor is putting together.
This will be the initial policy. Once the initial dust settles we'll take a closer look at how to handle the broader caseOrchard wrote: Of course, the GM can ALWAYS just take as a policy: I don't allow in game additions. Send me the file prior to game start and I'll review them. No additional scripts/functions within x hours before the game.
THoughts?
I agree with you. I totally understand why it's being set up to be GM only, and I'm not going to complain about it, but I would prefer it to do something like have that be the default but let the GM change the preference in the campaign settings.Orchard wrote:Regarding players being allowed to load javascript functions:
...
THoughts?
Sounds like a good job for a wiki. I suppose the RPTools wiki could be used and permission for the "User Contributed Scripts/Docs" virtual folder could be given out on a case-by-case basis.Lindharin wrote:[...] And any scripts available to the community can be edited by anyone in the community, so a really useful but poorly documented function can always be documented by someone else if needed.