Closed Moesh-zz closed 8 years ago
I think it would be a good idea to include the >{} notation because it would allow the smelt commands to be isolated from the regular json in the code and we would be able to provide more specific syntax highlighting for smelt.
That sounds great. I tried taking a swing at this, but got confused quickly. Would you be able to walk me through it?
Yeah, I'm away this week but I should be free next week.
Also, there is a new variables feature: http://smelt.gnasp.com/syntax.html#variables
Would it be possible to add highlighting to how they are declared and used?
Example:
$name=Gnasp
$nameAndTitle=Mr ${name}
/say Good day ${nameAndTitle}!
Output: [@] Good day Mr Gnasp!
That should be pretty easy to implement
Sorry to add more; but "repeating-chain" and "impulse-chain" are now valid on the JSON properties
Example:
# CHECK TIMER
>{"type":"repeating-chain", "auto":true}
/worldborder get
/stats block ~-1 ~ ~ set QueryResult @e[type=ArmorStand,name=SYSTEM] timer
/scoreboard players remove @e[type=ArmorStand,name=SYSTEM] timer 1000000
We will definitely include that when we update the syntax.
The newest version now includes smelt's json and variables.
Smelt has a new addition for defining Command Block types, as well as variable handlers.
>{ "type":"repeating","auto":true, "conditional":true, "executeAs":"@a[name=whatever]", "markerTag";"NameName" }
While this uses JSON, the behavior controls the type of command blocks being placed.
I think we should highlight the
>{}
to as either a command or a support type.I'm leaning towards support type, since it affects every command to follow until a new line of command blocks is determined, but I'm not sure.
More info here: http://smelt.gnasp.com/syntax.html