Difference between revisions of "Talk:UnrealScript Feature Recommendations"

Latest revision as of 10:10, 23 June 2010

Point of this page?=[edit]

I fail to see the point of this page. Quite doubtful that any relevant person (read: those responsible for the UnrealScript compiler) will read this page. —Wormbo 13:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I will have to agree with you there Wormbo but that isnt the sole purpose of the page, it would be nice to think Epic checks around to see how the documentation on their engine from external parties is going but its not really something they have to do and could be seen as a waste of time/money. Basically this page is to promote discussion about the language and syntax itself, see I dont 'expect' these features to be added just because I happened to say it and someone from epic happened to see it. What I was doing was putting my suggestions up there for criticism from every other UnrealScript programmer who visits the unreal wiki and offering a chance for others to follow, Im sure these couple of suggestions I have are rather small compared to what some of you might want to recommend. I do believe we should keep expectations within reason and suggest only things that actually could get changed as hypotheticals rather then massive rewrites to the core of Unreal Engine.

I am curious though, where do you think posting an article like this (contributed to by more then just a single uscripter) should be posted to, to get the highest probability that someone (such as that you mentioned) will view it? Id rather not send of my few piddly recommendations, I would rather a larger well thought out/discussed document contributed to by many people, so please everyone and anyone feel free to contribute or comment/critque on others recommendations, cool ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00zX (talk • contribs) 10:44, 1 May 2010

The content of this page is a purely subjective collection of feature you (as the only contributor to the article) would like to see. As such I'd say you should keep this on your user page. Or actually, you should discuss this in a place Epic Games people visit, i.e. somewhere on the Epic Games Forums or maybe on BUF Coding to reach a larger audience. —Wormbo 09:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot post on BUF coding because it doesnt allow anonymous posting and in the past my posts havent been accepted by the moderators of beyondunreal so that is not an option. Posting on Epic Games forums is a joke, sure plenty of skilled programmers visit and could give input but that still doesnt guarantee epic will respond (which wasnt the idea anyway). Im just going to take it down and forget about it, its not worth Epic's time going through a thousand pages of mindless n00bness just to get to the good info and its a waste of my time to try and organize forum posts into a coherent text. I didnt choose the wiki out of a hat, I chose it because its the best method to display, discuss, add on to and edit the information! I would hope Epic might actually visit a place outside of their little shell where everyone can contribute and isnt bound directly by their rules, thank you --00zX 16:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Casting[edit]

That casting idea is quite cool that would save a lot of time actually.

though a nicer syntax might be like the as keyword in C#

local Controller C as Controller(Other);

and about the acsessor idea i think that's useless because we have defines. --Eliot 17:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that accessor should actually be declared const, Im just thinkin of areas where there could be speed improvements to the language as well as improvements to the structure of the language. I will clean these up at some point once we get a nice list, I do have to agree that casting as type isnt easy to read, using = or as its lengthier but theres no delusions about what this does, in the compressed form I ended up with its possible people will make mistakes. One I can see off the bat is mistaking var() type stuff; for var type() stuff; --00zX 15:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)