DDL wrote:JSL & AEmer, is it possible that the behaviour of ++i and i++ varies from language to language? I mean, if JSL is claiming that where you put the plusses affects when in the "for loop" the increment happens, then maybe that's something that is specific to the language he's using? (Coz the internet seems to say there's no difference in loops -the increment happens after a run through the loop either way in java and all C variants..the consensus is that ++i is more efficient, but that compilers take i++ and turn it into ++i anyway)
All the internet says is that n= i++; means that i gets incremented but n is now whatever i was before (i.e. the increment happens after the assignment), whereas n= ++i; means that both n and i are the same value (increment happens before the assignment). In for loops there generally is no assignment within the context of the loop arguments themselves, so I can't see what difference it'd really make.
When you put it that way, actually, I wonder if it's not specifically a feature of C#, but of Visual Studio 2010, which is my programming environment (and I pretty much never want to use anything else ever. Writing Python in notepad++ was painful, and anything I found looking across the internet for a good ide for python with intellisense and spellcheck drove me mad
). Visual Studio's interpretation of your code certainly is different from the typical vanilla compilers, apparently. Tons of syntax sugar, and handy shortcuts, and automated translation of code for you: for example, when working in WPF, the xaml pages are translated into c# when you compile (and then the c# isn't actually compiled into machine code, but rather the MS intermediate language in the exe. when that's ran, the .NET just-in-time compiler actually compiles it into optimized machine code and runs it).
Also I've been terribly sick the last couple of days so I haven't gotten much done. Tons and tons of reading, and I put in like eight hours so far into the guts of an XNA project (logic for tracking the overall game state, and a stack for screens, and managers for UI elements and classes for some of those elements. I stopped short of the tile rendering engine because focusing on the text was getting hard).
I did however beat the Half-life 1 mod
Cry of Fear. It's not bad, in fact it's pretty good for a mod product, but I can't help compare it to its predecessor by the same core people, Afraid of Monsters: Director's Cut. And AoM is a far better product. With Cry of Fear, they distilled the horror, and they let themselves wander stiflingly close to conventional genre tropes as they set out to make a "Survival Horror Game" instead of just a "nightmarish horror mod". You've got a RE style inventory, with six slots, but no magic item box, and occasionally things you drop on the ground with vanish into the ether as an event causes a background area transition to spawn in things or change things, making whatever you dropped for space gone for good.
It's also in general a lot brighter than AoM, with smaller individual maps, less monsters, and overall shorter I think. This is to serve the purpose of adding lots of new shiny to Goldsrc, like water shaders and normal maps and dynamic light sources, but honestly they probably should of just graduated to Source. Strapping these new elements onto this old engine seriously hobbled what they could do with their mod, and the damage done is plainly visible.
Still, overall, a good mod, and a good time, and still very scary. I started a replay with its dev commentary turned on, but found out a couple hours into that that if you save and restart, dev commentary will turn itself off, so if you want to see it all you have to play through in one go- and the game right now, with version 1.0, has a pretty bad memory leak that makes the game crash after roughly two hours of play.