It's not logic. It's a design flaw. No other development platform would do this. If you iterate through objects, it's not pushed later in some queue. Seriously, have you programmed in any other environment that does this? I sure haven't.
It's not logic. It's a design flaw. No other development platform would do this. If you iterate through objects, it's not pushed later in some queue. Seriously, have you programmed in any other environment that does this? I sure haven't.
Yes, something in that last post really doesn't seem to track.
The logical result for AV-A is 10, not 60, unless it performs the absolute calculations first and then the referential ones after.
EDIT: Sorry, there were two post made while I was typing.
workaround, don't start fast loop in events that do something for multiple objects(positioning, setting values,...), triggered event will mess up selection listOriginally Posted by ASD
edit: misread that, sry
Yeah, so tell me which language in which operations aren't carried out in the specified order as soon as you perform a function that iterates through more than one object? Name one.
I'm with Nifflas on this one. When you set the alterable values of an Active it should do that all at once and then move onto the next actions. This is how actions have worked in MMF2.
Yeah. I totally get that there's a reason and all. Of course Algul's explanation why it works this way is correct. However, It's still a flaw.
* It's never helpful for the game designer. You never actually need this behaviour for anything you program. If you disagree, tell me a single scenario where this behaviour is useful, and I'll tell you a hundred where the other is.
* It's not consistent with other languages. No matter which language you're using - when you start iterating through stuff using "for each", the rows underneath does not begin before the "for each" is complete. When you call a function, rows underneath do not begin before the function has finished.
* It's not easy to understand. The alternative is simpler and makes more sense; a list of things that happens in order from top to bottom. 1: Set a variable. 2: Do something to 20 objects. 3: Now set another variable. Easy and simple. There's no possible universe, neither this one or an alternative, where it'll make more sense to 1: Set a variable. 2: Do something to 1 object, wait with the 19 other until all other actions has completed. 3: Now set another variable. 4: Whoa, now let's do those 19 objects.
I agree that it would be better to do actions on all object right away, and I agree that it's design flaw, but I do not think it's a bug. There are other design flaws in MMF that does not make sense and all of them are so deep in the code that fixing them would be near impossible. All we can do now is accept how it works and deal with. Hopefully all those quirks will be fixed in MMF3.
But what surprise me that it looks like many people think it's something new, mmf worked this way as long as I have it. So conclusion is that I don't defend this behavior as the correct one but just saying that it's not a bug.
I have not touched anything in the action handling since... wow 5 years?
How are we supposed to interpret that?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote