Oolite Bulletins

Commander McLane wrote:

Also

Code: Select all

player.commsMessage("Weiss is probably on board that transport; I'll need to follow it.", 6)

is not valid code anymore.

Between Oolite 1.74 and 1.75 there was an important change in the syntax of commsMessage. The optional parameter specifying how long the message should be shown ('6' in this case) was removed. Instead there is now an optional parameter specifying the receiver of the message. '6' is not a valid ship entity.

Sure

Commander McLane wrote:

Also

Code: Select all

player.commsMessage("Weiss is probably on board that transport; I'll need to follow it.", 6)

is not valid code anymore.

Between Oolite 1.74 and 1.75 there was an important change in the syntax of commsMessage. The optional parameter specifying how long the message should be shown ('6' in this case) was removed. Instead there is now an optional parameter specifying the receiver of the message. '6' is not a valid ship entity.

Not true. There are two different commsMessage()es.

Ahruman wrote:

Not true. There are two different commsMessage()es.

Oops. I didn't realize this.

Is it a good idea, though, to have two different comms messages?

Edit: No body is perfect

It's not too helpful, I suppose! Changing player.commsMessage() to maybe player.screenMessage() could possibly make things a bit clearer, but we are in freeze mode.
In hindsight it's weird that nobody noticed / raised any issues about this pair of functions...

AFAIK, they've both been there since at least 1.70: way back when I started playing with the code I just assumed that everybody but me knew of a very good reason why they were called the same, & I thought it better not to attract attention to my ignorance!

Kaks wrote:

It's not too helpful, I suppose! Changing player.commsMessage() to maybe player.screenMessage() could possibly make things a bit clearer, but we are in freeze mode.
In hindsight it's weird that nobody noticed / raised any issues about this pair of functions...

AFAIK, they've both been there since at least 1.70: way back when I started playing with the code I just assumed that everybody but me knew of a very good reason why they were called the same, & I thought it better not to attract attention to my ignorance!

But you will need to handle all the OXP's written in the previous syntax. And I do not see a point in replacing the syntax.

Okti wrote:

But you will need to handle all the OXP's written in the previous syntax. And I do not see a point in replacing the syntax.

The point is to improve the syntax by removing inconsistencies. That's what we all have done time and again, especially since Oolite 1.73. It's what all the deprecation business is about, and it's the reason why there's the 'working with 1.75' column in the Wiki's OXP list, and why some OXPs have a 'N' in that column.

Oolite itself is a work in progress, therefore nothing is set in stone. (That's not strictly true, because currently we are in a feature freeze, and therefore the current state of Oolite is set in stone for the time being, except for bug fixes.) Handling all OXPs written in the previous syntax is what all of us OXP writers have done repeatedly(!) in the last couple of years. Therefore this really isn't an argument against doing it again. You're lucky, because you got into OXPing very late, after the feature freeze, therefore you have the privilege to do your first steps in a stable environment. But this is a rare exception, by no means the rule. I can't count the times when my OXPs had to be re-written because the syntax changed and they stopped working.

Though?

Commander McLane wrote:

Okti wrote:

But you will need to handle all the OXP's written in the previous syntax. And I do not see a point in replacing the syntax.

The point is to improve the syntax by removing inconsistencies. That's what we all have done time and again, especially since Oolite 1.73. It's what all the deprecation business is about, and it's the reason why there's the 'working with 1.75' column in the Wiki's OXP list, and why some OXPs have a 'N' in that column.

Oolite itself is a work in progress, therefore nothing is set in stone. (That's not strictly true, because currently we are in a feature freeze, and therefore the current state of Oolite is set in stone for the time being, except for bug fixes.) Handling all OXPs written in the previous syntax is what all of us OXP writers have done repeatedly(!) in the last couple of years. Therefore this really isn't an argument against doing it again. You're lucky, because you got into OXPing very late, after the feature freeze, therefore you have the privilege to do your first steps in a stable environment. But this is a rare exception, by no means the rule. I can't count the times when my OXPs had to be re-written because the syntax changed and they stopped working.

Also, If you are forced to change your OXP's, that means they are still in demand and they are not dead. You probably know end to a development means, no one is using the software

I hope to change my OXP's to oolite 2.0 and hopefully to oolite 3.0.

Hi, have started Iron Raven and need some help. Got a message after a few stages to say that I should look at he pdf that came with the oxp - but can't find anything and now stuck...have I missed something

Thanks

cloud wrote:

Hi, have started Iron Raven and need some help. Got a message after a few stages to say that I should look at he pdf that came with the oxp - but can't find anything and now stuck...have I missed something

Thanks

I assume you are using a Mac. The PDF file is actually inside the OXP which is a folder on Windows and Linux. On Mac it behaves differently and you can't see inside the OXP by default. How you actually access it on a Mac I don't know, but someone will be along shortly to help.

Edit: Forgot to say "welcome to the friendliest board this side of Riedquat"(tm) I apologise for my rudeness.

thanks. and sorted it after a trawl through the boards - need to 'show package contents'.

Gimi wrote:

cloud wrote:

Hi, have started Iron Raven and need some help. Got a message after a few stages to say that I should look at he pdf that came with the oxp - but can't find anything and now stuck...have I missed something

Thanks

I assume you are using a Mac. The PDF file is actually inside the OXP which is a folder on Windows and Linux. On Mac it behaves differently and you can't see inside the OXP by default. How you actually access it on a Mac I don't know, but someone will be along shortly to help.

I'd consider this a bug of the OXP, and it should be corrected in the next version, simply by creating another folder around the OXP, and moving any text files out of the OXP itself and into that containing folder.

Commander McLane wrote:

Gimi wrote:

cloud wrote:

Hi, have started Iron Raven and need some help. Got a message after a few stages to say that I should look at he pdf that came with the oxp - but can't find anything and now stuck...have I missed something

Thanks

I assume you are using a Mac. The PDF file is actually inside the OXP which is a folder on Windows and Linux. On Mac it behaves differently and you can't see inside the OXP by default. How you actually access it on a Mac I don't know, but someone will be along shortly to help.

I'd consider this a bug of the OXP, and it should be corrected in the next version, simply by creating another folder around the OXP, and moving any text files out of the OXP itself and into that containing folder.

I know, you have voiced this strongly before. I didn't make it, I just checked the OXP file on my HD. Since I know you use a Mac Cdr McL, how does Cloud get access to the files inside.

Gimi wrote:

I know, you have voiced this strongly before.

Seems I'm getting old. Sorry for repeating myself, won't happen again. Seems I'm getting old.

Gimi wrote:

Since I know you use a Mac Cdr McL, how does Cloud get access to the files inside.

Right-click the OXP to open the context menu, then choose 'view package' (or whatever the menu item reads in English).