No strong preference either way. OTBS looks a bit cleaner, but I tend to agree with @gacmix about Allman's readability (easier to visualize blocks of code).

It looks like using make ready builds for a second, but then hits me with:

@jcmcdonald I was wondering about this too... it seems like the associated task (T1323: Apply Updated Standards) is no longer valid, so I wasn't sure if that applied to this diff as well.

@ardunster what did you use to run this? make run? Just curious, because I tried it, ran into some trouble, and wanted to check if it was just me/my machine.

I was working on the lambda example while looking through the comments again and realized I said that a was the function name... lambdas are anonymous/unnamed functions 🤦

And my goodness, coroutines were a real doozy for me as well. I was mostly looking at this and this when working on that section.

@ardunster, from my understanding, a represents an anonymous function name. It’s used when we wish to execute a function, but don’t want to make a separate function elsewhere in the code.

Also, I like your thinking on using different keywords for stacks and queues.

@ardunster, for arrays and lists, would it be handy to have something static and dynamic? Like if you wanted to store a company’s department names (a finite number of entries, likely not going to change) and a list of employee ID numbers (an infinite number of entries, grows or shrinks as employees are hired/leave), you could utilize both arrays (departments) and lists (ID numbers).

@ardunster, thanks for making the Roadmap page! It’s going to be super helpful when we start.

@ardunster oh goodness, I must've been on autopilot when arc diffing this, because I didn't even notice that change. I don’t recall touching the .json, so I suspect it changed when I chose an interpreter. Thanks for pointing it out!

Changed "python.pythonPath" back to what it was before (see @ardunster's comment)

Thanks for your help! It looks like I'm back in business.

It appears that I'm having the same merge conflicts with my local Ratscript repo that I'm having with my local DiamondQuest one, so I can't seem to pull this diff.

Here's a quick update on the sprite sheet. I've started moving the individual sprites closer together to get rid of the padding that's causing us trouble. Should be done soon!

Hi @SGallagherMet! Thanks for letting me know. I'm also a bit new to working with/making sprites, so I appreciate the heads-up. Were there any sprites in particular you noticed were giving you trouble? Or was it just improper sizing on the whole thing (i.e. if one is off, then the others are all off)?

T1356 seems to cover what we did/are doing a little better, so I think it's alright to get rid of this one or mark it as complete.

Thank you so much for your help, @jcmcdonald! It looks like everything worked correctly, as the warning I got before isn't showing up anymore.

https://pad.mousepawmedia.net/p/RatscriptNotesJuly20

...and here's a visual update. I believe everything's there, but parts of the designs are hard to see (e.g idle's nose). I'm working on cleaning up stuff like that. This is also a .png file, which was just for the sake of a quick save. The final one will be a .gif :)

@jcmcdonald Probably uploading to both, that way there’s a visual copy and a copy in the code.

Sorry folks, I forgot to change the name of this diff before landing it. There should be no errors, despite what the commit message says.