Macro discussion thread #94
Replies: 2 comments 1 reply
-
Pertaining to #89 (comment): This was my line of thinking when it came to the My initial line of thinking was to have macros such as: @ExportedRange(in: 1...100, stride: 1) var bodyCount = 1
@ExportedCheckbox var debugSettings = false
@ExportedFile(allowing: [.gdscript, .jenson]) var resourcePath = "res://"
@ExportedField(style: .single) var someText = "" While it does mean that there are more macros in place, I see a couple of advantages this way:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I like the way you are thinking about this, perhaps Export can be just for methods, but for properties that have a richer way of being surfaced in the IDE, it might make sense to have additional values. Nice find on the GDScript export attributes! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
To improve the usability of SwiftGodot, it would be nice to leverage the recently released macros.
Some good ideas are in this PR:
#89
And in this bug (which links to a POC):
#86
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions