Here's an idea. At the moment in the field I work in there is a language being developed as an IEEE standard called SystemVerilog (P1800). Now, already there is an early version of the standard but no-one has actually yet implemented the whol langauge.
The point of all this is, maybe there should be a committe/discussion/etc. of where AGS scripting shoudl go in the future, and set a far-off goal to aim for. This could then be the "standard" and CJ can decide to implement as much or as little of the standard or other stuff as he likes, but there would be a fixed reference point. This would allow code writers to write their code as future-proof as possible.
Does this seem like a good idea to anyone? Or am I speaking sloblock (anagram) ?
This sounds like an awful lot of complication to me. It's not like the AGS scripting language is going to be implemented by multiple vendors and they need a common ground to build the same language. :)
Since I haven't participated in the forums that much, I don't now what others will think but to me the forums seem like a good place to discuss language issues, especially since CJ is checking it all the time and ultimately he is the one who implements/discards things.
Well, I know what you mean, but the point would be that sometime people ask for or changes get made that fix a problem in a kludgey way becuase that fix only takes 2 minutes for CJ to do, but the ideal way to do it would be another way. Also, since CJ said a few things in the 2.7 beta thread about "if I was designing again from scratch..." and I visualised this as a way to facilitiate that kind of idea.
Well, I suppose it wouldn't do any harm to draw up a sort of "ideal" specification for the scripting language, and bear it in mind when adding anything to the script system.
The new OO-style scripting syntax is here to stay, but if there are other features that you think we should aim for then please do list them. I suppose examples would be things like strings in structs, structs in structs, a "new" keyword and stuff like that.
Quote from: Pumaman on Wed 02/03/2005 22:42:56I suppose examples would be things like strings in structs, structs in structs, a "new" keyword and stuff like that.
Yes! ;D
Edit: Sorry for digging this up after nearly a month, but I would find all of the things listed in the above quote
very useful.
Nearly a month? Check your dates again, buddy. :P