Difference between revisions of "Category talk:OpCodes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:You're right, Seemann, that's the only way to go, as there isn't (and will never be) an official naming convention for opcodes. | :You're right, Seemann, that's the only way to go, as there isn't (and will never be) an official naming convention for opcodes. | ||
| − | Additionally, we have to establish a blueprint for the general design of an Opcode Description page - which syntaxes to include, explanation of parameters and so on. | + | :Additionally, we have to establish a blueprint for the general design of an Opcode Description page - which syntaxes to include, explanation of parameters and so on. |
| − | But personally, I fear that this domain will never be used for modding reference. Most opcodes can still be found at xx-db.webtools4you.net, a 'proper' database, so I don't see the urgent need for listing them here. Not every kind of content is appropriate for being wikied. | + | :But personally, I fear that this domain will never be used for modding reference. Most opcodes can still be found at xx-db.webtools4you.net, a 'proper' database, so I don't see the urgent need for listing them here. Not every kind of content is appropriate for being wikied. |
| − | We would rather need a more general approach to mission coding, especially with the beginners in mind, describing 'best practices' (use of waits/player_defined checks), delivering a proper introduction and tutorial - possibly with extensive examples, so that it gets as easy as possible to produce some working code. | + | :We would rather need a more general approach to mission coding, especially with the beginners in mind, describing 'best practices' (use of waits/player_defined checks), delivering a proper introduction and tutorial - possibly with extensive examples, so that it gets as easy as possible to produce some working code. [[User:SteaVor|SteaVor]] 06:45, 15 Apr 2007 (CDT) |
| − | [[User:SteaVor|SteaVor]] 06:45, 15 Apr 2007 (CDT) | ||
| − | :oh, sorry, forgot about signing. as for the db vs. wiki, that db never gives to us such possibilities that wiki can (cross-reference links, examples, categories and such). So we MUST expand this part of wiki as it possible. And I see that the db is full of spam last days, hope the wiki can avoid that. [[User:Seemann|Seemann]] 10:58, 15 Apr 2007 (CDT) | + | ::oh, sorry, forgot about signing. as for the db vs. wiki, that db never gives to us such possibilities that wiki can (cross-reference links, examples, categories and such). So we MUST expand this part of wiki as it possible. And I see that the db is full of spam last days, hope the wiki can avoid that. [[User:Seemann|Seemann]] 10:58, 15 Apr 2007 (CDT) |
| − | :OK, so let's try it here. The first task would be defining the actual layout for such a description page. When I look at the few opcodes that have already been added, I see no conformity at all - not even speaking of contributions that denote 'Hammer83' as 'Hammer32'! | + | :::OK, so let's try it here. The first task would be defining the actual layout for such a description page. When I look at the few opcodes that have already been added, I see no conformity at all - not even speaking of contributions that denote 'Hammer83' as 'Hammer32'! |
| − | Let's begin it! | + | :::Let's begin it! [[User:SteaVor|SteaVor]] 13:44, 15 Apr 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 18:44, 15 April 2007
It is very important to include all the info about opcodes we have to the wiki. But should there be more unified way of naming the separate pages? I suggest to use the titles like title=opcode_0000, title=opcode_0001 and so forth.
- You're right, Seemann, that's the only way to go, as there isn't (and will never be) an official naming convention for opcodes.
- Additionally, we have to establish a blueprint for the general design of an Opcode Description page - which syntaxes to include, explanation of parameters and so on.
- But personally, I fear that this domain will never be used for modding reference. Most opcodes can still be found at xx-db.webtools4you.net, a 'proper' database, so I don't see the urgent need for listing them here. Not every kind of content is appropriate for being wikied.
- We would rather need a more general approach to mission coding, especially with the beginners in mind, describing 'best practices' (use of waits/player_defined checks), delivering a proper introduction and tutorial - possibly with extensive examples, so that it gets as easy as possible to produce some working code. SteaVor 06:45, 15 Apr 2007 (CDT)
- oh, sorry, forgot about signing. as for the db vs. wiki, that db never gives to us such possibilities that wiki can (cross-reference links, examples, categories and such). So we MUST expand this part of wiki as it possible. And I see that the db is full of spam last days, hope the wiki can avoid that. Seemann 10:58, 15 Apr 2007 (CDT)
- OK, so let's try it here. The first task would be defining the actual layout for such a description page. When I look at the few opcodes that have already been added, I see no conformity at all - not even speaking of contributions that denote 'Hammer83' as 'Hammer32'!
- Let's begin it! SteaVor 13:44, 15 Apr 2007 (CDT)
