Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Need extra eyes - what is different?

Expand Messages
  • Tom Parker
    The short answer here is: The docs are lying to you... the feature you are attempting to use has not been fully implemented. ... For weapons, I don t doubt it.
    Message 1 of 16 , Mar 24, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      The short answer here is: The docs are lying to you... the feature you
      are attempting to use has not been fully implemented.

      > I swear I had this working in an earlier version of PCGen. The only
      > way around it that I see is to list all the armors separately - ick.
      > Any other suggestions? And maybe a future version should have the
      > TYPE for Armorprof files?

      For weapons, I don't doubt it. For Armor or Shield, that is unlikely,
      as CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR code has never functioned (the code has
      been commented out since it was imported in April 2006).

      If/when it is implemented, it should, in fact, take the ARMORTYPE
      syntax, e.g.: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|ARMORTYPE=ExoticArmor

      > I think Tom needs to comment where we can put
      > TYPE on Armor Proficiency like we can in Weapon Proficiencies.

      You can't, and expect it to work, because it wasn't possible without
      breaking backwards compatibility with 5.12 datasets. That isn't
      allowed by data rules, so you can't use TYPE in armor or shield profs
      and expect it to be recognized anywhere by PCGen.

      You also can't because it doesn't many any sense at all. The TYPEs
      people want to associated are not part of the proficiency, they are
      part of the equipment. The code mangling required to maintain parity
      of duplicate information is ridiculously complicated and completely
      unnecessary. I would note the Weapon proficiency system as
      implemented today is factually incorrect, but that's a battle I intend
      to fight at a later time, say 6.1. In short, I have seen no case
      where the Proficiency requires a TYPE.

      > Yeah, that's what I figured. When you're choosing proficiencies, the
      > chooser would be looking at proficiency types, not equipment types.

      Per above, the chooser has never looked at anything for armor or shield.

      > I think being able to have TYPE tags in the armorprof (and
      shieldprof) files
      > would be a good idea. Who knows, maybe it's already there, since as I
      > recall we said we wanted it to "work like the weaponprof file" back
      when we
      > were originally discussing it.
      >
      > Tom? Any input?

      Can you provide a particular example where you think it would be
      valuable? If so, we can consider adding support in 6.2. We cannot do
      it before then. TYPE actually meant ARMORTYPE in 5.12 (forced
      compatibility) and the "bad" use was deprecated in 5.14, so that we
      can force people to transition away from it, it must fail (TYPE cannot
      be used at all) in 6.0.

      TP.
    • Shelley
      ... My specific case is that I have various sets of armor that are all labeled by the publisher as Exotic and require a separate armor proficiency. While I
      Message 2 of 16 , Mar 25, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > Can you provide a particular example where you think it would be
        > valuable? If so, we can consider adding support in 6.2. We cannot do
        > it before then. TYPE actually meant ARMORTYPE in 5.12 (forced
        > compatibility) and the "bad" use was deprecated in 5.14, so that we
        > can force people to transition away from it, it must fail (TYPE cannot
        > be used at all) in 6.0.
        >
        > TP.
        >

        My specific case is that I have various sets of armor that are all
        labeled by the publisher as 'Exotic' and require a separate armor
        proficiency. While I can hard code everything now, if other books are
        added, this would be very messy maintenance without using some sort of
        TYPE in granting the armor proficiency.

        Shelley
      • Tom Parker
        ... From what I can read of your example, AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=Exotic will do that today. There is no need to actually add a TYPE to the Proficiency. The
        Message 3 of 16 , Mar 25, 2008
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Shelley" <takenote61@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > > Can you provide a particular example where you think it would be
          > > valuable? If so, we can consider adding support in 6.2. We cannot do
          > > it before then. TYPE actually meant ARMORTYPE in 5.12 (forced
          > > compatibility) and the "bad" use was deprecated in 5.14, so that we
          > > can force people to transition away from it, it must fail (TYPE cannot
          > > be used at all) in 6.0.
          > >
          > > TP.
          > >
          >
          > My specific case is that I have various sets of armor that are all
          > labeled by the publisher as 'Exotic' and require a separate armor
          > proficiency. While I can hard code everything now, if other books are
          > added, this would be very messy maintenance without using some sort of
          > TYPE in granting the armor proficiency.
          >
          > Shelley

          From what I can read of your example, AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=Exotic
          will do that today. There is no need to actually add a TYPE to the
          Proficiency.

          The case I'm looking for is "Why does the Proficiency require a
          separate TYPE from the TYPE already defined in the Equipment?" I have
          yet to find a situation where it is not duplicating information from
          the Equipment.

          TP.
        • Shelley
          ... Uh, unless this is a chooser that doesn t look like one, it won t work for me. Shelley
          Message 4 of 16 , Mar 25, 2008
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            >
            > From what I can read of your example, AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=Exotic
            > will do that today. There is no need to actually add a TYPE to the
            > Proficiency.
            >

            Uh, unless this is a chooser that doesn't look like one, it won't work
            for me.

            Shelley
          • Martijn Verburg
            Trackered - K
            Message 5 of 16 , Mar 26, 2008
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Trackered - K

              > The short answer here is: The docs are lying to you... the feature you
              > are attempting to use has not been fully implemented.
            • Tom Parker
              ... Well, today, you can t get there from here. For Armor or Shield, CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR code has never functioned (the code has been commented out since
              Message 6 of 16 , Mar 26, 2008
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Shelley" <takenote61@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > >
                > > From what I can read of your example, AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=Exotic
                > > will do that today. There is no need to actually add a TYPE to the
                > > Proficiency.
                > >
                >
                > Uh, unless this is a chooser that doesn't look like one, it won't work
                > for me.
                >
                > Shelley
                >

                Well, today, you can't get there from here. For Armor or Shield,
                CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR code has never functioned (the code has been
                commented out since it was imported in April 2006).

                If/when it is implemented, it should, in fact, take the ARMORTYPE
                syntax, e.g.: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|ARMORTYPE=ExoticArmor

                Thus, the same as the above AUTO example, it should not require a TYPE
                in the Proficiency file, but should leverage what is already in the
                Equipment file.

                TP.
              • Terry FitzSimons
                Two questions; first In reference to the tracker [ 1926295 ] ARMORPROF incorrect I am thinking of changing the docs for: Tag Name: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|x|y|z|z
                Message 7 of 16 , Mar 27, 2008
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Two questions; first

                  In reference to the tracker "[ 1926295 ] ARMORPROF incorrect" I am thinking
                  of changing the docs for:

                  Tag Name: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|x|y|z|z
                  Variables Used (y): UNIQUE (Choose from all proficiencies not already
                  possessed by PC)

                  to:

                  Tag Name: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|x|y|z|z
                  Variables Used (y): UNIQUE (Choose from all proficiencies not already
                  possessed by PC)
                  CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|ARMORTYPE="Currently inactive, implemented
                  after 6.0" in the usual red.

                  Is this acceptable?

                  Second, how to change the html page to left justify rather than center
                  justify or what ever its doing?

                  Terry

                  On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:13:02 -0000, "Tom Parker" <thpr@...> wrote:

                  >--- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Shelley" <takenote61@...>
                  >wrote:
                  >>
                  >> >
                  >> > From what I can read of your example, AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=Exotic
                  >> > will do that today. There is no need to actually add a TYPE to the
                  >> > Proficiency.
                  >> >
                  >>
                  >> Uh, unless this is a chooser that doesn't look like one, it won't work
                  >> for me.
                  >>
                  >> Shelley
                  >>
                  >
                  >Well, today, you can't get there from here. For Armor or Shield,
                  >CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR code has never functioned (the code has been
                  >commented out since it was imported in April 2006).
                  >
                  >If/when it is implemented, it should, in fact, take the ARMORTYPE
                  >syntax, e.g.: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|ARMORTYPE=ExoticArmor
                  >
                  >Thus, the same as the above AUTO example, it should not require a TYPE
                  >in the Proficiency file, but should leverage what is already in the
                  >Equipment file.
                  >
                  >TP.
                  --

                  Terry FitzSimons
                  FITZSIMONS@...(Small Letters Only)

                  Data Lemur, Docs Gibbon
                • Martijn Verburg
                  ... Hmm, I don t think we ve ever documented tags in advance of them being coded, my minor preference would be to delete the entry, but I ll leave the call up
                  Message 8 of 16 , Apr 7 8:51 AM
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Two questions; first
                    >
                    > In reference to the tracker "[ 1926295 ] ARMORPROF incorrect" I am
                    > thinking of changing the docs for:
                    >
                    > Tag Name: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|x|y|z|z
                    > Variables Used (y): UNIQUE (Choose from all proficiencies not
                    > already possessed by PC)
                    >
                    > to:
                    >
                    > Tag Name: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|x|y|z|z
                    > Variables Used (y): UNIQUE (Choose from all proficiencies not
                    > already possessed by PC)
                    > CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|ARMORTYPE="Currently inactive,
                    > implemented after 6.0" in the usual red.
                    >
                    > Is this acceptable?

                    Hmm, I don't think we've ever documented tags in advance of them being
                    coded, my minor preference would be to delete the entry, but I'll
                    leave the call up to Eric as the Doc lead

                    > Second, how to change the html page to left justify rather than
                    > center justify or what ever its doing?

                    That depends on what you are trying to center, until we go full style
                    sheet you can add an align="center".

                    K
                  • Eric C. Smith
                    Hi Folks! ... I think we don t need to include this non-capability in our docs. In general, we do not want to document the capabilities that we do not have,
                    Message 9 of 16 , Apr 7 10:15 AM
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Folks!

                      Kar wrote:
                      >
                      > > Two questions; first
                      > >
                      > > In reference to the tracker "[ 1926295 ] ARMORPROF incorrect" I am
                      > > thinking of changing the docs for:
                      > >
                      > > Tag Name: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|x|y|z|z
                      > > Variables Used (y): UNIQUE (Choose from all proficiencies not
                      > > already possessed by PC)
                      > >
                      > > to:
                      > >
                      > > Tag Name: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|x|y|z|z
                      > > Variables Used (y): UNIQUE (Choose from all proficiencies not
                      > > already possessed by PC)
                      > > CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|ARMORTYPE="Currently inactive,
                      > > implemented after 6.0" in the usual red.
                      > >
                      > > Is this acceptable?
                      >
                      > Hmm, I don't think we've ever documented tags in advance of them being
                      > coded, my minor preference would be to delete the entry, but I'll
                      > leave the call up to Eric as the Doc lead

                      I think we don't need to include this non-capability in our docs.

                      In general, we do not want to document the capabilities that we
                      do not have, especially as we will never be able to include everything
                      we can't do . . . .

                      There are exceptions, but we need to vet those very carefully.
                      (Tom and I had such a discussion several weeks ago and for
                      that instance, he made a good case.)

                      > > Second, how to change the html page to left justify rather than
                      > > center justify or what ever its doing?
                      >
                      > That depends on what you are trying to center, until we go full style
                      > sheet you can add an align="center".

                      I believe what Terry is refering to is the tendancy for long LST
                      examples to be justified on both sides. Sometime last year I
                      added a style in pcgen.css to fix this. You can use
                      "<p class="taginentx"><code>Long LST Line</code></p>",
                      wrapped inside of a <blockquote class="indentx"></blockquote>
                      to fix the problem. Its a little trick, but it works and it looks good
                      when you get it right . . . :-)

                      On a related note, looking at Tom's earlier post, I am inclined to
                      remove the documentation for the non-functional capability.

                      Eric Smith
                      Doc 2nd
                    • musicguerilla
                      SIGHS looks like this just answered my very question in the newer post. Wish i d seen this first :( ... AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=Exotic ... to the ... work ...
                      Message 10 of 16 , Apr 8 10:58 PM
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        SIGHS looks like this just answered my very question in the newer
                        post. Wish i'd seen this first :(

                        --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Parker" <thpr@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Shelley" <takenote61@>
                        > wrote:
                        > >
                        > > >
                        > > > From what I can read of your example,
                        AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=Exotic
                        > > > will do that today. There is no need to actually add a TYPE
                        to the
                        > > > Proficiency.
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > > Uh, unless this is a chooser that doesn't look like one, it won't
                        work
                        > > for me.
                        > >
                        > > Shelley
                        > >
                        >
                        > Well, today, you can't get there from here. For Armor or Shield,
                        > CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR code has never functioned (the code has
                        been
                        > commented out since it was imported in April 2006).
                        >
                        > If/when it is implemented, it should, in fact, take the ARMORTYPE
                        > syntax, e.g.: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|ARMORTYPE=ExoticArmor
                        >
                        > Thus, the same as the above AUTO example, it should not require a
                        TYPE
                        > in the Proficiency file, but should leverage what is already in the
                        > Equipment file.
                        >
                        > TP.
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.