Use normal constructors for EasingCurve, FunctionCurve, ConstantCurve #16367
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
alice-i-cecile
approved these changes
Nov 13, 2024
Member
alice-i-cecile
left a comment
alice-i-cecile
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is clearer, more consistent and easier to discover (since it's automatically linked in the docs in both directions).
cart
force-pushed
the
curve-constructors
branch
from
b71c082 to
001c49a
Compare
alice-i-cecile
added
C-Usability
BenjaminBrienen
approved these changes
Nov 13, 2024
Contributor
|
I don't feel particularly strongly about this either way, but some notes here about why these are this way:
|
IQuick143
approved these changes
Nov 13, 2024
Contributor
IQuick143
left a comment
IQuick143
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see an issue with this, and I like the consistency.
Though I second all that mw said.
mweatherley
added
S-Ready-For-Final-Review
NthTensor
approved these changes
Nov 13, 2024
mockersf
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 16, 2024
#16367) We currently use special "floating" constructors for `EasingCurve`, `FunctionCurve`, and `ConstantCurve` (ex: `easing_curve`). This erases the type being created (and in general "what is happening" structurally), for very minimal ergonomics improvements. With rare exceptions, we prefer normal `X::new()` constructors over floating `x()` constructors in Bevy. I don't think this use case merits special casing here. Add `EasingCurve::new()`, use normal constructors everywhere, and remove the floating constructors. I think this should land in 0.15 in the interest of not breaking people later.
ecoskey
pushed a commit
to ecoskey/bevy
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 2, 2024
bevyengine#16367) # Objective We currently use special "floating" constructors for `EasingCurve`, `FunctionCurve`, and `ConstantCurve` (ex: `easing_curve`). This erases the type being created (and in general "what is happening" structurally), for very minimal ergonomics improvements. With rare exceptions, we prefer normal `X::new()` constructors over floating `x()` constructors in Bevy. I don't think this use case merits special casing here. ## Solution Add `EasingCurve::new()`, use normal constructors everywhere, and remove the floating constructors. I think this should land in 0.15 in the interest of not breaking people later.
ecoskey
pushed a commit
to ecoskey/bevy
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2025
bevyengine#16367) # Objective We currently use special "floating" constructors for `EasingCurve`, `FunctionCurve`, and `ConstantCurve` (ex: `easing_curve`). This erases the type being created (and in general "what is happening" structurally), for very minimal ergonomics improvements. With rare exceptions, we prefer normal `X::new()` constructors over floating `x()` constructors in Bevy. I don't think this use case merits special casing here. ## Solution Add `EasingCurve::new()`, use normal constructors everywhere, and remove the floating constructors. I think this should land in 0.15 in the interest of not breaking people later.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
7 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Objective
We currently use special "floating" constructors for
EasingCurve,FunctionCurve, andConstantCurve(ex:easing_curve). This erases the type being created (and in general "what is happening" structurally), for very minimal ergonomics improvements. With rare exceptions, we prefer normalX::new()constructors over floatingx()constructors in Bevy. I don't think this use case merits special casing here.Solution
Add
EasingCurve::new(), use normal constructors everywhere, and remove the floating constructors.I think this should land in 0.15 in the interest of not breaking people later.