You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If you use recycle to create an object when the group is empty it will not correctly supply the passed in ObjectClass a reference to game. I have modified this in my own build to do:
return this.add(new ObjectClass(this._game));
on lines 289 and 317. Since the ObjectClass parameter is not typed nor is the return I am just making the assumption that the simplest primitive a Group can accept is Basic. Is there a use case where you would use group to manage other objects that are not extended from basic?
Fixed in 0.9.3. Groups cannot (or rather, should not) manage anything that doesn't extend Basic at some point. Although technically from a JS point of view you could give it any object so long as it had the same properties as Basic does (not from a TS point though)
If you use recycle to create an object when the group is empty it will not correctly supply the passed in ObjectClass a reference to game. I have modified this in my own build to do:
on lines 289 and 317. Since the ObjectClass parameter is not typed nor is the return I am just making the assumption that the simplest primitive a Group can accept is Basic. Is there a use case where you would use group to manage other objects that are not extended from basic?
Here is my use case:
You should probably add some more tests for groups.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: