-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improving E&E Check #751
Comments
What argument layout would we like to use for the revised E&E Check? Current Layout: _objects = array of units, groups which are to be checked for Proposed layout: _objects = array of units, groups which are to be checked for Advantage of this layout is that it's backwards compatible out of the box. Of course, from a programmer's POV it's probably not very nice to have the new shape related arguments so far away from |
There's also the additional consideration of whether we want to use |
Here's the reworked script: |
While working on a rescue mission I required certain functionality facilitated by the E&E check. I went ahead and used my own script anyway since I needed a specifically shaped area, but I realised that the E&E component of F3 could be improved a bit more.
Primarily centered around the use of the recently introduced (v1.58) inArea function, it would allow finer control of the target area (in terms of shape) while cutting down on some of the code implemented in F3.
The following lines can be removed, for example:
...as
inArea
automatically handles this.Additionally, I was trying to see whether the following method could be used:
and it looks possible. The entire
switch
statement can be eliminated.I'm aware that 3-4-0 is already in RC, so marking this for future release but will start working on it soon enough. May not be able to do it before 11th July anyway.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: