Gscript should be..
 

More object oriented...

Not sure how to describe what I mean though.
Things like creating images with scripts by drawing other images into it. then just using that one image..

:(

I lack the ability to describe further what I mean right now.

Re: Gscript should be..
 

ehh.. do you mean like.. setting a shape as an image frame, then putting images onto the frame? so you're kind of defining that the object should be treated as an image

Re: Re: Gscript should be..
 

I think that's what im getting at.


So I can do a bunch of things like. A health bar. a 23/60 bar and some text . and treat all of that like one image.

Re: Re: Re: Gscript should be..
 

that would require A LOT of reprogramming in the script engine

Re: Re: Re: Gscript should be..
 

ehh, you mean like grouping in MS Word? lol

That's not object-orientation, or at least not in a programming sense.

There should be classes and methods, but it requires lots of effort.. Plus we'd probably get into declaring variables and stuff... It would mess up older scripts.

Backward compatibility is good and all.


But sometimes you just have to move on.
Heck you can use any telephone ever made and they all work the same with any phone outlet. That is nuts the phone system could be so much better if they didn't require backward compatibility by law.

And it just may be the same thing with many other things.

:-(
Aw well I can live without it.



I wasn't really sure what to call it. I forgot what object-oriented really meant in programming but I know some things that can do what im thinking of and they were referred to as object oriented languages.

ew.

Woo!

Only for people used to C++, the rest of the Gscript junkies would have to take a little time to ween themself off the gscript handicaps.

do you mean having to int a var before modifying or reading it? int varname; ?

Declaring variables is all good and fun. ;-)

How else do you know what your using? :-/

GUESS & CHECK!!!!! w00t!!! ^_^