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

Feature request: active world #53

Closed
SlimeDog opened this issue Oct 27, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed

Feature request: active world #53

SlimeDog opened this issue Oct 27, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
common Issues related to the common implementation enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@SlimeDog
Copy link

Presently, one needs to use chunky world <world> to change to the current world (unless the current world is world). This is rather non-intuitive. Please consider making the active world for all commands the current world, unless it has been explicitly set with chunky world <world>.

@pop4959
Copy link
Owner

pop4959 commented Feb 7, 2021

I looked into adding this feature, and while it is possible, it introduced some complexity that I don't think make sense for the moment with the plugin's current design.

This mostly has to do with the fact that now we would need to support both defaulting to the sender and selecting explicitly, but that leaves a lot of ambiguity with what will (or should) happen if someone were to, for example, select a world explicitly and then run a command in-game intending to select their current world. Switching worlds while in-game also poses an issue, since a command selecting something in one world could then affect another if the user isn't aware of how the defaults work.

That being said, I did like the idea, so I was a bit disappointed to find out this didn't function as well as I thought it would. If I find a better way to handle this in the future I will consider it again.

Note: I did end up adding chunky start [world] instead, which may be more intuitive for people coming from other plugins where the builder style we use isn't as common.

@pop4959 pop4959 closed this as completed Feb 7, 2021
@SlimeDog
Copy link
Author

SlimeDog commented Feb 7, 2021

Thanks for looking into it. I don't find the complexity confusing, but I appreciate that others might. (I implement the complexity in my own plugins.)

@pop4959 pop4959 added the common Issues related to the common implementation label Feb 18, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
common Issues related to the common implementation enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants