[IGDA LCPP] Re: The TDD
- From: "Jim Verhaeghe" <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <igda_lcpp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:44:40 -0000
Dean,
When you say engine type, do you mean engine functionality (i.e.: graphics
rendering)? If so, then I would organize it by your third choice. We only
need to mention the source file the function is in for reference purposes.
If not, then please explain further what you mean by engine type. To me
there is only one engine we are working with (the Half Life 2 engine), and
all references to an engine refer to it. So, if you want to make a
reference to a specific part of the engine, then we should talk about it in
a different manner to avoid confusion (i.e.: graphics rendering functions).
Does this make sense to you guys?
Jim Verhaeghe
Contract Game Developer
jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: igda_lcpp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:igda_lcpp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Dean Butcher
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 11:24 PM
To: igda_lcpp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [IGDA LCPP] The TDD
Hi all
I have some proposals for the organisation of the doc, but would like
to hear your thoughts. Of course, these document will only include
such information on the material as would be used for the mod:
1. Organisation by engine type, source file then function
This is more programmer orientated only omitting the details fo
parameters and function definitions.
2. Organisation by source file, then function
This will involve a library of function name that will be an even
greater nightmare for the non-programmers to follow. I personally do
not think that this is a wise option, but could hear your thoughts
none-the-less.
3. By engine type, then function, then source file
This would allow the non-programmer to go directly to the info that
they require to see if something is possible, at the expense of making
our search more laborious.
Any comments on additions or alterations?
Cheers
Dean.
Other related posts:
