Ilor <kailo...@gmail.com>: > > True, but I think the other important question is: "What to do with > > things that are meaningful but carry a lot of state which is not > > meaningful?" Include them fully or split them? > > This is a valid point, the default answer in my opinion should be > "just use a named area", unless there is something important that can > be shown. Units are a borderline case, because we could show the unit > type, gender and facing and it would be meaningful visual information. > Events don't really have anything of the sort -- it's just WML that > can do anything -- so a "split" would be to just use named areas, and > the editor doesn't have to know about events. > > > I agree having several tools can be bad, but having one tool which is > > jack of all trades is bad too. That's why I like to discuss the what do > > we want to do with a editor before determining whether it gets included > > in the map editor or ends up in a scenario editor. > > Thing is, we don't really want a scenario editor. We want to include > some extra info in the map so writing scenarios is easier, and the map > should still be edited by the map editor. We can manage the complexity > by making the proposed features separate tools (modes) to the editor > that can,but don't have to, be used.
Once again, ilor parallels my thinking exactly on both these issues. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a> _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev