We recently introduced a new redesigned functions feature for Construct 3. Check out that blog post in case you missed it. We have a few more things we wanted t...
In the efforts of implementing an integrated approach for the Functions feature, including the parameter names. You guys didn't notice that you've sacrificed the "ease of use" and some important features.
It's not a real Function when instead of this:
----------------------
*Function (var1, var2, var3)
You get this:
*Function (var1, leftover1, leftover2, leftover3, var2, leftover4, var3)
It's not unorganized. Even JS has a feature for that, it's because there is a purpose behind that. A new Function can have its own specific parameters it needs from the other Function. And passing it included into the new passed Function is redundant and messy.
I hope you understand my point on how this is essential.
When passing Function parameters, "YOU MUST BE ALLOWED TO CHOOSE WHICH TO ACTUALLY PASS". Otherwise, it's , with respect to the developers, a design-flaw.
Also, currently, in-related to the previous concern, you "MUST" be able to swap parameters, "I'm sure you guys are well aware", it's for the benefit of readability and organization of events.
I hope you guys can reconsider.
---------------------------------------------------
I do have a proposal fix to this issue:
2 actions to solve them.
1. Call Custom Function
2. Add Parameter.
Where the custom parameters are pushed on a Call Custom Function.
What do you think?
----------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the time.
What does that offer over function maps? It just looks like a different way of doing the same thing.
This is a 3 month old blog post by the way, it might be more appropriate to take this up on the forum.