ID:972540
 
Applies to:Dream Maker
Status: Open

Issue hasn't been assigned a status value.
I think allowing compile profiles would be beneficial to those that supply "map builder" versions of their game/s and for beta/alpha releases of games.

The profile of course would only save settings of files that are either included or excluded from the build.

Example,
Profile 1 has code.dm included profile 2 doesn't, you can compile profile 1 and obviously it will compile including code.dm (now I can show profile 1 off to my friends as a preview of the game and I did it in 10 seconds by selecting the profile not by unticking code.dm excluding my unfinished code).
You can use #define and #if/else/endif to conditionally include code. You could combine this with the #include preprecessor to conditionally include files.
Yes you can do that, but that could be a large project to list every single file as text.

Why not just have profiles.
If you look in the DME, it already lists all the files as text.
In response to Albro1
Albro1 wrote:
If you look in the DME, it already lists all the files as text.

Yep that's good, but this is a request for profiles built into Dream Maker, and not using work arounds like that.
In response to A.T.H.K
A.T.H.K wrote:
Yes you can do that, but that could be a large project to list every single file as text.

Why not just have profiles.

Seems like DarkCampainger's solution provides you exactly what you want. The difference between typing #include ... and ticking a box is fairly marginal, especially since its doubtful that you'll be creating dozens of files every hour and constantly moving them around. And if you are, you'll have almost as much to do with a concept of profiles anyway.

It stands to reason that if you're not making use of an existing solution to do this (Such as preprocessors), then the use of the feature once implemented would be fairly marginal at best.
In response to A.T.H.K
Preprocessor directives were designed to do what you're asking for. It's definitely not a "work-around." It's strange that you're quoting an example of how the Dream Maker IDE does this automatically.

That is, whenever you check a box to include a file, an #include is created in the .dme after you compile.

Another example of why it's not a workaround: The __MAIN__ macro was designed to conditionally include certain files, so that they are only used when you run the project from the source. Using the "demo files" option in packaging your source automatically generates this code in your .dme:
#ifdef __MAIN__
#include "demo.dm"
#endif
An automated feature would prove to be more practical.
No, it wouldn't. Have someone show you Eternia's source. The whole thing has several different profiles for accessing specific functions, and the source is monstrous. This feature is easy to use. If you can't copy and paste, what are you doing here on BYOND?
It would be more practical.

And if I couldn't copy and paste I would be on the Internet derp.
Listen, if you're not going to even take the time to form a valid response, then *sign* off. You requested a feature that has already been created. We told you about the already existent feature, which really requires little more effort than copying and pasting from the include.txt. Your response was quite literally that this was not good enough and that it would be more practical to create a function to automate the process. How lazy and obnoxious can you be? The feature is there. How much time would you like Tom and Lummox to spend automating a feature that only advanced users really use anyway?
Sorry but it would be more widely used by non advanced users if it was automated I really don't care what any of you say as its not your decision.
I don't think you understand what a forum is; "A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged."

There is a reason why the Trackers are public forums, where anyone can reply to. On certain features, they might want the opinion of other users. They're not going to add something (especially something that might or might not be redundant.) just because one person wants it. Feature requests aren't about you, they're about BYOND. Meaning, the users of BYOND should have a say what features they (and others) want, or might not want.

There's no need to be rude, gosh. If you don't agree with someone's opinion of your request, you don't need to refute everyone's post. Just...ignore it. You've already made your point, restating it with every new user's post isn't going to help the users, or Tomlum see the feature in any better light.