[crossfire] scripts

[Yann Chachkoff]

Le Thursday 10 May 2007 13:41:08 Lalo Martins, vous avez écrit :
> > mmm... I don't understand what the advantage of this would be - I think
> > it makes things rather complex for map-makers, with no obvious benefit.
>
> You missed the point here.  It couldn't possibly make things complex for
> map-makers, since this would never be visible to them :-) map scripts
> stay exactly as they are.  What I'm talking about is introducing a
> distinction between them and arch scripts.  So it would "make things
> complex" for arch writers... which, IMO, it wouldn't, it would make
> things a bit simpler for them.
>
I consider arch-makers to be the same kind of people as map-makers :). 
Granted, I should have used "arch-maker" there, which is what I really meant.

What I don't like is that "@" syntax - it is cryptic and not required, 
provided that archetype scripts get installed at the proper place upon 
archetype collection. I don't think introducing another specific notation 
would make things "a bit simpler".

As for the idea of shipping scripts in the arch package, instead of having to 
put them into the map package, my position is "why not ?". I doubt 
that "compiling" scripts in a single archive would be a great idea, though.