[WildCard65]

Alright VSH users, I need some testers to test probably the biggest change ever to come to VSH. Porting it over to SM 1.7's syntax!
You can grab source here(To compile, you need 1.7 ported morecolors.inc, get it here.
Grab VSH here: https://github.com/WildCard65/Versus...ve/1.7Port.zip

Post issues about the code in this thread.

[WildCard65]

Status up: Confirmed tested + working by 1 person. Only error encountered is already fixed in PR

[VoiDeD]

I honestly don't understand everyone's mad rush to update every plugin under the sun to the transitional syntax. There simply isn't any reason to do it other than "I wanted to".

Changing the syntax doesn't solve any problems: the VSH plugin will always be a pile of bad, no matter what syntax it's written in. Converting it to the transitional syntax doesn't make it easier to maintain, and only increases the chances of errors being introduced in the process.

So what's the point?

[Wliu]

Putting lipstick on a pig maybe?

I'm personally putting off moving FF2 to the transitional syntax off until the v2 rewrite that will come eventually™.

[93SHADoW]

Originally Posted by VoiDeD I honestly don't understand everyone's mad rush to update every plugin under the sun to the transitional syntax. There simply isn't any reason to do it other than "I wanted to". Changing the syntax doesn't solve any problems: the VSH plugin will always be a pile of bad, no matter what syntax it's written in. Converting it to the transitional syntax doesn't make it easier to maintain, and only increases the chances of errors being introduced in the process. So what's the point?

Obsoletion of the old syntax comes in mind.

The mere mention of transitional kinda does give the idea that eventually support of the old syntax would be dropped at some point...

I am aware this whole new syntax stuff is entirely optional for now.

[VoiDeD]

Originally Posted by SHADoW NiNE TR3S Obsoletion of the old syntax comes in mind. The mere mention of transitional kinda does give the idea that eventually support of the old syntax would be dropped at some point... I am aware this whole new syntax stuff is entirely optional for now.

If the definition of obsoletetion is "removal", that's incorrect. The old syntax will never go away.

<dvander> VoiDeD: that absolutely will not happen. unequivocally, the old syntax will not go away <dvander> VoiDeD: i think what we'll find is that as new features get added they'll only support transitional syntax, and gradually over time you'll stop seeing the old syntax simply because there is no reason to use it <dvander> you'll be stuck in coding something that looks < 1.7, which will continue to work For All Time

I think the understanding of what "transitional" means is also flawed. The transitional syntax is simply there so that code written in the transitional syntax can easily be ported to the next iteration of the sourcepawn language and compiler (which is still in the works).

The current spcomp that we all know and love isn't going to go away and isn't going to stop supporting sourcepawn. It'll be the year 2080, we'll be in old age and likely dying due environmental changes, but all is not lost as the current VSH code will compile just fine.

[Chdata]

Yeah I don't know why Wildcard wanted to so bad, but before I knew it, he did.

Okay, I knew he was going to but I felt no reason to stop him if he willingly felt like doing it.

Or I was still confused about what was backwards compatible or not... I think I remember asking him what the point of it all was afterwards after I heard old syntax still compiles.

Anyway if Voidy is right in saying that new features will only be supported in new syntax, then anyone who still wants to move forward in the wr long run with an imperfect but "already there" plugin would find use for it.