@Thenomain said in EPIC vs Steam:
Someone needs to come up with a system where no matter your game store, you can just find your game and launch it without launching the launcher
Oh hello, slightly younger and more ignorant me, have you tried Playnite yet? I'm about to. I'll let you know how it is.
@Ganymede said in General Video Game Thread:
My Spider usually pulls out of a mission
You can pull specific mechs out of a mission?
Why the hell didn’t the tutorial tell us this?!
Or Rhost for all those same reasons.
Guess who was bribed into coding CtL 2e for his CoD system?
Me. It was me.
No exposed code yet because I'm still working on how to do Contracts, and I need to make Clarity a health system.
The system is otherwise very straightforward.
There's one good thing going on here: This is ancient, ancient code. This means that most of what was in Penn at the time was also in TinyMUSH which means almost all of it should translate into TinyMUX without issue.
The functions I see that are not in TinyMUX is 'lmath()' and 'timestring()'.
lmath() looks like it's a 'run a basic math function on a space-delimited list of values'.
e.g.
lmath(
add,
iter(
lnum(
min( %1, %2 ),
sub( max( %1, %2 ), 1 )
),
ceil( mul( %q0, div( itext( 0 ), 3 )))
)
)
In more modern TinyMUX, this is 'ladd()', so you can replace lmath( add, with ladd( . Fortunately, 'lmath( add, ' is the only use of lmath( in the file.
--
So what about timestring()? As you asked in another thread, this can be easily pulled as exptime(), as long as there is no second delimiter to timestring(). ... Which it doesn't look like it is. So you could do a simple conversion of timestring( --> exptime( .
--
Nothing else is screaming out to me.
Yeah but that's the thing. As Sparks said, it's already been posted somewhere.
One of the non-"m-theory" theories about our universe is that its bubble-like nature is one of many in whatever medium our universe exists in. I think Stephen Hawking touched on it, but I can't remember.
It's so dry this year that one of my nostrils is constantly cracking and scabbing over.
It's annoying.
This breaks the system beautifully:
&c.aspiration [v( d.asp )]=$^\+?asp(/[^ ]+)?(.*)?$:
think strcat(
switch entered:, %b, setr( s, trim( rest( %1, / ))), %r,
switches known:, %b,
setr( k,
sort(
iter( lattr( %!/c.aspiration* ), rest( %i0, / ), , | ),
a, |, |
)
), %r,
switch matched:, %b,
setr( m, grab( |%qk, %qs*, | )), %r,
content:, %b, setr( c, trim( %2 )), %r,
);
@assert not( haspower( %#, guest ))={
@pemit %#=
u( .msg, asp, I'm sorry%, guest%, but this isn't *for* you. )
};
@assert cor( not( %qs ), t( %qm ))={
@pemit %#=
u( .msg, asp, I don't know the switch '%qs'.
I know: [itemize( lcstr( trim( %qk, b, | )), | )]
)
};
@pemit %#=case( 1,
// switch
cand( t( %qs ), t( %qm )),
u( c.aspiration/%qm, %qc ),
// specific: list details (yeah, probably should have its own attribute)
t( %qc ),
strcat(
if( strmatch( %qc, */* ),
[setq( p, pmatch( first( %qc, / )))][setq( n, rest( %qc, / ))],
[setq( p, %# )][setq( n, %qc )]
),
case( 0,
cor( isstaff( %# ), strmatch( %#, %qp )),
u( .msg, asp, You cannot check someone else's aspiration. ),
hastype( %qp, player ),
u( .msg, asp, No such player ),
isint( %qn ),
u( .msg, asp,
You didn't enter a number%; did you mean 'asp/list %qn'?
),
u( display.aspiration.details, %qp, %qn )
)
),
// general
u( display.aspiration.list, %#, lattr( %#/_aspiration.* ))
);
-
@set v( d.asp )/c.aspiration=regex
-
@set v( d.asp )/c.aspiration=no_parse
-
&c.aspiration/fulfill [v( d.asp )]=
strcat(
setq( f, trim( first( %0, = ))),
setq( r, trim( rest( %0, = ))),
case( 0,
strlen( %qr ),
u( f.list.aspirations,
if( strlen( %qf ), %qf, %# ),
fulfilled,
asp/fulfill
),
strmatch( %qf, */* ),
u( f.aspiration/fulfill.request, %qf, %qr ),
u( f.aspiration/fulfill.approve,
first( %qf, / ),
rest( %qf, / ),
%qr
)
)
)
It thinks that the */* in the middle of two lines are the start/end of a comment block.
Well that is kind of a surprise. Also kind of too bad. I'm not a fan of the system, but it seems just as a requirement as bboards.
Muxify blocks by looking for a non-whitespace character in the first character position. The core drawback from this is forcing a certain code methodology (i.e., you cannot have non-indented code), but if it's easier than sensing for @, &, /*, #, or EOD, then I don't think it's a bad forced methodology. Python gets away with much stricter indenting rules.
--
edit:
@faraday : He means in the first character position. Right now to define an end of block, you need to put - in the first character position.
e.g., the following input:
this is a test
within a test
within a test
-
This is another test.
- This is a third test
-Fourth test--now with pretend em-dashes!
creates this output:
this is a test within a test within a test
This is another test.
This is a third test
Fourth test--now with pretend em-dashes!
@@
@@ Formatted with Mu-Format
@@ 2019 Lemuel Canady, Jr
@@ https://github.com/lcanady/mu-format
@@
--
edit edit:
Another suggestion: Put the output in an input pane so you can select-all and not get the whole web page.
I did a copy/paste from
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/thenomain/GMCCG/master/4%20-%20XP%20and%20Costs/4b%20-%20XP%20Costs.txt
and it mashed everything together.
It converts leading tabs to a space. I assume it does the same to leading spaces.
(My code style is to leave trailing spaces for space-formatting before a newline.)
It really, really gets confused if you copy from the non-raw part of GitHub, e.g.:
https://github.com/thenomain/GMCCG/blob/master/3%20-%20Stat%20Setter/3b%20-%20Stat%20Command.txt
Benefit over Muxify: It doesn't get choked up when a \* is in the middle of a line. (Muxify is fine with this in shorter chunks but not the amount of code I tend to throw at it.)
Drawback over Muxify: It needs - to know where a block ends.
Sssssoooooo...about them peeves, eh?
@faraday said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
I mean. That sort of is the definition of a disorder. Debilitating, like the disorders themselves, is a spectrum. You still have a broken leg, regardless as to whether you can hobble around on crutches or are stuck in a wheelchair.
Yes, which is why I was quibbling with the assertion that someone with just a mild "OC" didn't have a disorder.
They do if they liked The OC.
I've been watching Maniac on Netflix, and I am in love with it. Holy shit Jonah Hill. Holy shit Emma Stone. It's the closest I've seen anyone come to Brazil, with less social commentary and a more modern take on surrealism, plus a deep, satisfying pacing. Its writing style reminds me of Moon.
My favorite part of the narrative is when the government tells people not to trust the government.
@mietze said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Nah you need the asshole part too, a bit.
Says every successful and popular Mu* in the last two decades.
I'm not even talking about the world at large. I'm talking about my place in it.
Because I cannot express my frustrations enough, this quote from Douglas Adams will have to do:
“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
And so this is the situation we find: a succession of Galactic Presidents who so much enjoy the fun and palaver of being in power that they very rarely notice that they’re not. And somewhere in the shadows behind them—who? Who can possibly rule if no one who wants to do it can be allowed to?”