M.Doerner

I believe you are off by one more day.

I am glad you mentioned the game so much here. Otherwise, I would probably not have discovered it.

I guess, playing solo, and thus being able target both growth cards at myself, was not what this spirit was designed for.

The other one that felt a bit strange was rampand green; it was so easy.

I would personally pick other stuff when drawing at random.

I guess it was not helped by playing it with the introductory card order.

I guess that feels better with more spirits and, thus, spots farther away to influence.

And the special ability felt rather useless.

I could not get my head around how to not get too much blight at first.

Still, it thought me pushing around explorers.

The one I liked least was Flicker.

I played the first six true solo, but did not feel up to trying ocean true solo.

Well, or pushes everything into the ocean.

I liked Ocean and Thunderspeaker.

My first games with the low complexity spirits were still somewhat challenging, but with the higher complexity ones, base level difficulty was no problem at all.

So far, I have only played at base difficulty, i.e. without adversaries to get a feel for the spirits.

@SimonForsberg I received Spirit Island as a board game and played through it with every base game spirit so far to get a feel for them. Pretty nice game, I have to say.

Merry Christmas!

Btw, I really do not like these viral license restrictions. So, for the record, should we ever consider to (re-)license part of RD's code base under a license like MIT or downward compatible, consider this my approval for my contributions to RD.

Moreover, porting something to another language is somewhat of a grey area anyway.

That being said, as long as Wayne does not complain, I would consider it a non-issue.

@Greedo I think, if you want to avoid making your project GPL3 and be absolutely sure, you could probably ask Wayne. He definitely is the one who added that capability to RD and with that the original copyright holder for that part of the code base. Copyright holders can allow to license under any license if their contribution is original work.

Unfortunately, that seems to be a common usage scenario for RD users. At least the issues we got before culling the feature suggest that.

Usually, these work fine against a repo on the local disk or even against github. However, they tend to fail horribly when the repo is on a network drive.

We would just run into the shortcomings a the git library we choose again.

I am strictly against git integration. That is just asking for trouble.

I think the meta data is whatever is in the project window and the references.

Forgot about those. But yes, that is project meta data.

I think there is the project meta data, including the references, the secret internal type libraries, which we primarily need for super types and locked/ignored projects, and the controls.

There are actually not that many things not in the source code.

I think we also have to ask the client for the project meta data.

In that setting, the user should then be able to specify which file./path to log to.

That does not have to be there at the start, but it could still be useful.

Maybe we should still add a possibility to log to a file. This could be a setting under an advanced category.

Getting rid of the command bar should also remove some problems on teardown. As far as I remember, we get RCW disconnection errors for its component on shutdown.

Why exactly does the DB live in another process than the LSP server? Is this to support multiple servers using one database?

Don't we actually listen for keyboard window messages in the toolwindows to capture the shortcuts?

Happy New Year!

I think if we implemented the LSP the upshot would be that there is already a sensible base protocol and that one could potentially even use the LS with a vscode client, albeit without the features driven by the stuff we pull directly from the VBE.

Unfortunately, we cannot just use the nuget package with the base implementation because of in compatibles licenses.

@MathieuGuindon If we move parsing, and probably also resolving, out of process, we might as well look into implementing the language server protocol, with some extensions for stuff we extract from the VBE.

However, setting the reactives up the right way would probably be a challenge.

As a future enhancement, we might want to switch to a reactive approach. Then, reparsing might get much less complicated.

That thing is a bit of a mess because of the difficulties with cache invalidation.

Merry Christmas to all of you!

However, I first have to find some time to actually do it.

Specifically, I wanted to look at rust analyzer.

I still plan to do some research on how other projects handle the connection between semantic objects, parse trees and selections.

Well, or when we try to navigate to a declaration in a module that is not open.

My issue was more with the scenario that the user opens an existing module. The tricky part would be to associate the already existing declarations and references with the contexts.