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
