*** Recipe Updates ***

[Luksor]

Luksor, I put the items.ini in. I decided not to delete most of the stuff you deleted, for compatibility reasons. So the lightstonedust stays

Ok

[NiLSPACE]

creating a map is more difficult than i thougd it confuses me that you say something different then the recipe.txt are there 2 ways??

---

yay got it the line is 3x3,1:2:339:1,1:3:339:1,1:1:339:1,2:1:339:1,3:1:339:1,3:2:339:1,3:3:339:1,2:3:339:1,2:2:345:1@358:1 #-> Map

[xoft]

I was proposing a new format to replace the current recipes.txt format:
https://forum.cuberite.org/showthread.ph...96#pid3096

[xoft]

I have written a parser for the new grammar, its code is even a bit shorter than the old parser, and I'd say it's much more cleaner, as it's separated into several functions etc.

Now I need to write the recipe matching - get the recipe that represents the current arrangement on the crafting table. This is gonna be a bit more difficult

---

It seems that the "*:2"-style coords would make the recipe matcher too complicated. I think I'll step down from that feature. So the coord grammar is revised:

Code:

<IngredientN> = <ItemType>, <Coord1>, <Coord2>, ... <CordN>
<CoordN> = <X>:<Y> or *

This means that either full coords must be given, or a single asterisk, meaning "anywhere".

Note that "anywhere" may match already matched items, so the following recipe wouldn't work:

Code:

# Sticks:
Planks, *, * | Stick, 4
# This would match even a single pile of at least 2 planks

[FakeTruth]

I like your recipes syntax much more than the one used right now

The only difficulty I see with it, is comparing the user input to a recipe with the "*:2"-style coords Which you already seem to have encountered

[Luksor]

I'm leaving on a school trip tomorrow, so i wont be able to work on the recipes until Thursday.
See you later.

[xoft]

I'll keep both recipe formats in for the time being, then. If I manage to finish them at all

FakeTruth, I'm glad you like it. I hope you'll like the parser, too

---

It seems that I accidentally managed to get even the "*:1" coords working. The only problem with them is if you combine two such definitions in a crossing directions, such as "*:1, 1:*". Then the recipe matcher may be unable to match the recipe to a crafting grid of "1:1, 2:1". But hey, I don't think there's any such recipe

[xoft]

A few details:

Which of the following formats do you think is the best?
Format 1 (as specified earlier):

Code:

<Ingredient1> | <Ingredient2> | ... | <IngredientN> | <Result>
Stick, 2:2, 2:3 | Cobblestone, 2:1, *:1 | StoneHoe

Format 2

Code:

<Result> | <Ingredient1> | <Ingredient2> | ... | <IngredientN>
StoneHoe | Stick, 2:2, 2:3 | Cobblestone, 2:1, *:1

Format 3

Code:

<Ingredient1> + <Ingredient2> + ... + <IngredientN> = <Result>
Stick, 2:2, 2:3 + Cobblestone, 2:1, *:1 = StoneHoe

Format 4

Code:

<Result> = <Ingredient1> + <Ingredient2> + ... + <IngredientN>
StoneHoe = Stick, 2:2, 2:3 + Cobblestone, 2:1, *:1

Or a different one?

---

Wife says the best format is this one:

Code:

<Result> = <Ingredient1> | <Ingredient2> | ... | <IngredientN>
StoneHoe = Stick, 2:2, 2:3 | Cobblestone, 2:1, *:1
Planks^0, 4 = Log^0, *

She was preferring the + as the divider, until she noticed we're using a * for coords, and it's too close to + visually.

[Taugeshtu]

Listen to your wife I like 5 format the most

[FakeTruth]

Smart wife