Reply to Re: PyDink player demonstration
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
February 14th 2013, 11:56 AM
shevek
Maybe you can convert the "sane" ones in the way I mention previously (since overall the code stays clean), and for others return an error message and leave them be, to keep the code from getting really messy.
Yes, I think that would be a good idea. As you write, it would be very useful to be able to edit and play existing DMods with as little work as possible.
support for strings would definitely be nice, but it's not critical and it could really mess up compatibility of the new scripts, so do whatever you think is best.
I think I'll add it at some point, but for now I wouldn't recommend using it anyway: the engine is very experimental, so I think people should use the editor to build old-style DMods. Which means they must not use any features that are incompatible with it.
Yes, I think that would be a good idea. As you write, it would be very useful to be able to edit and play existing DMods with as little work as possible.
support for strings would definitely be nice, but it's not critical and it could really mess up compatibility of the new scripts, so do whatever you think is best.
I think I'll add it at some point, but for now I wouldn't recommend using it anyway: the engine is very experimental, so I think people should use the editor to build old-style DMods. Which means they must not use any features that are incompatible with it.
