From GTAModding
Revision as of 20:36, 18 November 2016 by Spaceeinstein (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Those pages would benefit from the GTA3script syntax for the commands. I've been crawling documentation for IntelliSense and unfortunately parameter order here is not very helpful. Made a quick edit on how it could possibly look like. --Link2012 (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately custom ordering is an issue we have to live with for sake of compatibility with old tutorials and scripts. At the time there is no solid solution on that topic. Seemann (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The way the opcodes articles are structured right now, I feel like introducing syntax not from Sanny Builder's standard configuration will add unnecessary confusion. I did something like this in the past and I didn't like the result. Shouldn't the database at GTAG be satisfactory if you want the standard parameter order?--Spaceeinstein (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The documentation provided here is much more detailed, and editable, which is a big plus for the future. I've implemented a crawler for GTAG and GTAModding: It tries GTAModding first, then, if no match, GTAG. I mean, the only thing that the crawler needs is the syntaxN entry with the original syntax. That is CREATE_CAR [int] [flt1] [flt2] [flt3] [var]. Does it really add confusion? --Link2012 (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I think space's point is that syntaxes other than the Sanny Builder's one is not that common nowadays, so people reading an article will probably be confused by an alternate syntax provided here. We need to elaborate on the template to make explicit mentioning which syntax is which. We did this once before, as space said, for MB and gtama, but that was a mess. Seemann (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, anyway, here's what I'm asking it for:; Currently only CREATE_CAR and PRINT_BIG benefit from the GTAModding documentation because of the additional syntax. Would be lovely if we reached in a convention regarding this matter. --Link2012 (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I understand the point. Let's make a deal. I propose to take away an additional syntax line leaving only a canonical opcode variant. But we could safely put the parameters in their original order in the parameters section. You can parse the article and still get all the needed information, and the reader can match parameters info with the syntax line with parameters aliases. I will make an edit on how it may looks like. LINK and space, what's your opinion? Seemann (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks good. That'll even reduce loc on my side as there'll be no need to parse the syntax to understand the parameter section :) --Link2012 (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks good to me, too.--Spaceeinstein (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)