New GameSalad functions [User Feedback Needed]

CodeMonkey

Hello Community.

I'd like some feedback on format on new functions for the expression editor.

If there was a new function with the format
newFunction(x,y,"[yes|no|maybe]",z)

would it make enough sense that you would need to have one of the 3 specified values in the 3rd input and result in one of these functions:
newFunction(x,y,"yes",z)
newFunction(x,y,"no",z)
newFunction(x,y,"maybe",z)
newFunction(x,y,game.YNM,z) where game.YNM is a text attribute that has the value "yes","no","maybe"

Its starting to fall over to the "programming side", but I think it would help make functions more powerful. There will be documentation to describe how new functions work, and new templates that use them.

Is it clear enough for programmers and non-programmers alike that you must choose one of the 3 options within the "[ ]"?
Is it too much text for a function to have all of that extra text for the options? (We can stretch out the expression editor for the default view)

Edit:
Example--So in the drop down function selector you would see:

max
min
mod
newFunction
padInt

(it would not really be named "newFunction", it is just for this example. It could be named "doMyHomework") when you select "newFunction" from the drop down, it returns a format state above. It could have more or less parameters. But the new thing would be the required text values for a parameter in a certain spot.

The_Gamesalad_Guru

can you define yes, no and maybe? what about a boolean structure like true, false and if?

HoneyTribeStudios

If you adding more characters to functions I think an adjustment to how the expression editor is displayed would be good. At the moment there are no line breaks so trying to read anything that is longer than the width of your screen is awkward.

If the Y,N,M was a drop down list that would be obvious you had to select one. If it's normal text that you enter manually I think some people may get confused by the new system initially. i.e they'd think an update had broken their game or something. But I guess an alert when you first open a GS update would help with that + forum posts + easily accessible documentation.

mounted88

If you adding more characters to functions I think an adjustment to how the expression editor is displayed would be good. At the moment there are no line breaks so trying to read anything that is longer than the width of your screen is awkward.

If the Y,N,M was a drop down list that would be obvious you had to select one. If it's normal text that you enter manually I think some people may get confused by the new system initially. i.e they'd think an update had broken their game or something. But I guess an alert when you first open a GS update would help with that + forum posts + easily accessible documentation.

Yes please expand the expression editor, like he said above it is really hard to read, when its a long expression.

Also I'm ok with adding ynm via text, but a lot of people are going to forget or not know to do it without a drop down box to pick from.

CodeMonkey

@FryingBaconStudios yes,no,maybe in this case are the actual words needed. Other key words might be used, but the

This is just a generic example. So in the drop down list of functions you would see the function "newFunction" (like sin,cos,pow) and when selected it would give you newFunction(x,y,"[yes|no|maybe]",z) in the expression editor for you to modify.

@HoneyTribeStudios these would be for entirely new functions not modifications of existing ones. So no break in old projects. Y,N,M would not in the drop down list, but part of the function.

MarkOnTheIron

I wouldn't mind at all.

I can however see how for some peoples it could be harder to understand, but if you also release a thorough documentation on how it works then you should be ok.

Socks

@CodeMonkey

It's cool that you're introducing new expressions ! Looking forward to what you guys come up with.

I'd go with a drop-down too, most people recognise the drop-down convention, it's fairly universal, so I imagine it would be pretty obvious what you need to do.



(Obviously the drop-down would access Yes / No / Maybe / Attributes.)

kolabo

Hello Community.

I'd like some feedback on format on new functions for the expression editor.

If there was a new function with the format
newFunction(x,y,"[yes|no|maybe]",z)


Is it clear enough for programmers and non-programmers alike that you must choose one of the 3 options within the "[ ]"?

Yes, it is clear enough to me. And, though I'm not a programer, I know enough to edit a little code.

My 14year old son, who doesn't use gamesalad, thinks it's clear. He adds that in text he often sees a slash used instead of a vertcal bar.

CodeMonkey

@CodeMonkey

I'd go with a drop-down too, most people recognise the drop-down convention, it's fairly universal, so I imagine it would be pretty obvious what you need to do.

@Socks I'd probably avoid that since it would require an interface change and a way to add that in manually. But thanks for the feedback.

@kolabo Awesome. Thanks for that double feedback.

Socks

@Socks I'd probably avoid that since it would require an interface change and a way to add that in manually. But thanks for the feedback.

@CodeMonkey

Ah! Ok, then I think how you have it shouldn't be too difficult for people to adapt to.

JGary321

Seems pretty self explanatory to me. Plus there would most likely be a writeup on it in GS correct?

CodeMonkey

@JGary321 Yep.

JarrenH

I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding the use of this? What exactly would this function do, if it doesn't modify the current functions?

SnapFireStudios

So... I think I get what you are asking. So, yes, that's understandable. But I don't quite understand the application(s). :-/
- Thomas

jonmulcahy

Yea, I think it's pretty common to designate multiple choices with a bar. I've seen it many times before.

Socks

So... I think I get what you are asking. So, yes, that's understandable. But I don't quite understand the application(s). :-/
- Thomas

That would depend on what the function was.

Braydon_SFX

Sounds good to me - I'm interested to hear and or see what this new function can be used for!

jamie_c

I think it's understandable and if it became the norm people would adapt quickly.

gyroscope

Hi @CodeMonkey

I don't understand what use a Yes,No,Maybe would be used for when applied to a boolean attribute, except in the sense of Yes,No,Either ; would they be the same thing?

And if it is just Yes,No,Either, as this doesn't take much programming at all to achieve at the moment, I'm wondering if it would be worth it to implement as a function; but that's just me...

For something like one of your examples too: newFunction(x,y,game.YNM,z) the same thing springs to mind, not sure of it's usefulness, sorry if I've missed the point here! Be interested in some practical examples too, thank you. :-)

POM

I don't see any problems with that..
If people can use
Cellvalue(table,row,col)
Or
Magnitude(x1-x2,y1-y2)
Then using newFunction(x,y,"[yes|no|maybe]",z) should not be problem at all, and even if it is, after 3 times using it and testing it everybody will get used to it..
I wonder however.. What is it?!

Roy.

tatiang

People are misunderstanding because they are assuming that this is an example of an actual GameSalad function. But it's not. It's just syntax.

If we look at a current function, such as random, it appears as random(x,y). @CodeMonkey is just asking if new functions (or even current functions) should be shown with something to explain possible values better than simply listing 'x' and 'y'.

I think it's a good idea AND I think some people will be confused. But forward we go!

CodeMonkey

@JarrenH it wouldn't modify any of the current functions, it is just a feedback request to check if people find the "[option1|option2|option3]" format is confusing when telling people what values they can choose from and have to pick one for a certain parameter spot. These would be for entirely new functions.

@gyroscope this is just an example of what new functions would look like with options. I think I had evite answers on my mind.

3itg

@CodeMonkey
Whatever option interferes the least with concatenating or programmatically inserting a variable. When you are done, Teach us how to do it, and we will adapt.

gyroscope

@gyroscope this is just an example of what new functions would look like with options. I think I had evite answers on my mind.

Oh, I understand now, CM. Sorry for my slowness! i've reread your post now, and get it this time. And would agree I think your first suggestion of form is fine, i.e newFunction(x,y,"[yes|no|maybe]",z) I think that'd be clear enough; it'd be explained anyway, I guess. :-)

JarrenH

Oooh! I think I get it now! Then yes, I would prefer to have a little more information as to what values I can use in the functions. I've had to resort to jumping to the Cook Book to figure out what some of the allowed values are.

Now that I understand, a +1 from me!

POM

Whatever your choice will be with this manner, the very fact that you ask openly about it, shows how much GS communication with us has grown. And this is greatly appreciated!

Roy.

kinzua

I dont't see any issues with the suggested format. Drop down for Y,N,M would be a mess. Such a function is clearly easy to understand, depending on the new functionality it'll offer. Thanks.

quantumsheep

Heyas,

I'm a bit useless at this until I see a solid example in front of me, but my initial thought was:

Why is the YNM value placed 3rd in the line?

For now, you have newFunction(x,y,game.YNM,z)

Why not newFunction(game.YNM,x,y,z)

or

newFunction(x,y,z,game.YNM)

?

Or am I just being spectacularly stupid here?

QS :D

CodeMonkey

@quantumsheep it could be anywhere in the list of parameters. It could even be in a couple of parameters. But game.YNM would be if you were to use an attribute to pass in the option text instead of manually typing it in.(or manually erasing the other options)

quantumsheep

ok, ta for the heads up

JSproject

@CodeMonkey, yes, that's easy to understand - go for it!