Game Development

« first day (2802 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2515 days later) »

01:32

I have a dev folder in which there is a couple of projects, but I don't remember what they're about and why the hell did I not commit what's diff. I think I should add proper readmes and clean up properly after I'm done...

And I think I should bundle the 3rd party libraries I use with the project.

Almo

02:19

@Sie I never want to do something over. Programming something again is something I dislike almost as much as UI programming.

Sie

I just booted up Unity 5.3.2f1 and booted into my earlier version.

Feels good. I think this will make a good starting point.

Almo

Sie

yesterday, by Josh Petrie

Okay, that's cleaned up. I shouldn't have to say this but veiled insults are still insults and are a violation of our "be nice" policy. Please don't.

What happened here?

Sie

02:38

gfycat.com/PlaintiveInconsequentialBrocketdeer

Almo

03:10

There was an argument about a post that got edited. The person posting is a high rep user who's been here longer than Josh, and he argued that seniority should matter.

Sie

Ah.

6 hours later…

user92578

09:03

Is there a way to get std::make_unique to work with a POD struct without manually writing a constructor?

user92578

I.e. I'd like std::make_unique to brace-initialize the object

nwp

18:54

@Tyyppi_77 They can't do that because of compatibility with dumb constructors like std::vector<int>(1,2) vs std::vector<int>{1,2}. std::make_unique<POD>(POD{args}); is a workaround. If the double mentioning of the type bothers you you can write a function for that.

They could have employed some expression sfinae to make it work for both, but VS didn't support that for a long time. Not sure if they support it now.

(when I say dumb constructors that's my personal opinion. Plenty of people think std::vector<int>(1,2) does the right thing and std::vector<int>{1,2} does the wrong thing)

2 hours later…

Bálint

20:48

@Almo I don't think it should

That would give power to someone, just because he logged in first

nwp

21:39

@nwp Like that.

user92578

@nwp Oh okay, thanks for the reply! For some reason I didn't know I could construct a unique ptr with a plain object like that. I did find a few nice advantages in writing a few constructors but some structs I ended up writing can definitely do without them, so I'll probably go and change those.

user92578

I gotta say that it was quite a nice experience to write stuff with unique_ptr, even though the compiler errors were most unhelpful when I forgot to std::move the pointers.

nwp

One could argue that PODs should not be allocated with std::make_unique anyways and be just values instead.

user92578

22:01

I needed inheritance (one could argue that it's not a POD anymore, but I consider methodless structs PODs)

user92578

I could probably have used unions instead but I find that those get really messy really fast

user92578

Basically I had a base struct with a few members that all instances needed and a type enum, and then I inherited that for a few cases where I needed some extra data, and in the handling code I check the enum, cast to the right type and perform the correct action.

nwp

Composition was not an option?

Inheritance without virtual functions doesn't sound very useful.

user92578

22:20

Well I didn't want to repeat myself, and I'm not a fan of composition in cases like these, as that gets quite annoying too: actionRecord.TileData.BasicData.X vs actionRecord.X

user92578

But I kinda agree, inheritance without virtual does seem a little off

nwp

22:41

@Tyyppi_77 I can only imagine how confusing that would be with inheritance.

« first day (2802 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2515 days later) »

all rooms