Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Phaser.Utils.range: easily create an array that contains a range of numbers. #1170

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Sep 5, 2014

Conversation

ada-lovecraft
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@photonstorm
Copy link
Collaborator

This feature already exists in Math.numberArray but without the step parameter. Would you mind moving the guts of your version into that instead? It will save duplicating the feature then.

@ada-lovecraft
Copy link
Contributor Author

Done.

photonstorm added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 5, 2014
Phaser.Utils.range: easily create an array that contains a range of numbers.
@photonstorm photonstorm merged commit d72117a into phaserjs:dev Sep 5, 2014
@photonstorm
Copy link
Collaborator

Sweet, thanks.

@photonstorm
Copy link
Collaborator

Bum, I should have checked where numberArray is used because it used to be inclusive of the max value but your version doesn't include it. Should be fine, I'll document the change, but now need to search where in the rest of the framework I use it and adjust it.

@hilts-vaughan
Copy link
Contributor

Isn't that a breaking change? Some people might rely on the inclusiveness.

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Richard Davey notifications@github.com
wrote:

Bum, I should have checked where numberArray is used because it used to be
inclusive of the max value but your version doesn't include it. Should
be fine, I'll document the change, but now need to search where in the rest
of the framework I use it and adjust it.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1170 (comment).

@photonstorm
Copy link
Collaborator

It is, I'm tempted to move it back to Utils again as a result. Although there are lots of breaking changes in 2.1, one more may not matter too much.

@hilts-vaughan
Copy link
Contributor

It's nice to minimize breaking changes so that the amount of work to
incrementally update is less... but your the developer, so it's obviously
your call. :) Just my two cents

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Richard Davey notifications@github.com
wrote:

It is, I'm tempted to move it back to Utils again as a result. Although
there are lots of breaking changes in 2.1, one more may not matter too
much.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1170 (comment).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants