GDScript: Support % in shorthand for get_node

[vnen]

The % is used in scene unique nodes. Now % can also be used instead of $ for the shorthand, besides being allowed generally anywhere in the path as the prefix for a node name.

This is the syntax in GDScript to use the feature introduced in #60298.

Samples of the valid syntax:

var hey = $Child/Hey
var howdy = $Child/Hey/SubChild/Howdy

print(%Hey == hey)
print($%Hey == hey)
print(%"Hey" == hey)
print($"%Hey" == hey)
print($%"Hey" == hey)
print(%Hey/%Howdy == howdy)
print($%Hey/%Howdy == howdy)
print($"%Hey/%Howdy" == howdy)

A similar thing could be done for 3.x since it doesn't break compatibility.

Closes godotengine/godot-proposals#4583

[Mickeon]

I don't know about allowing the lone %. It sounds nice and cool on paper, but I personally find $% to be more explanatory.

[fire-forge]

Awesome! I tested it and it works great.

This also closes godotengine/godot-proposals#4583

[Mickeon]

Actually, my reasoning goes further than that. I would personally hold off the lone % operator as it does affect all of GDScript2. It's been fine for the $ operator, as accessing Nodes is fairly common in Godot, but introducing another wholy lone operator that does around the same thing, but only works in a "Scene & Node" context may be excessively cramped.

That's also because, in GDScript, % is already used in two wholy different contexts:

• Modulus
• String formatting

Introducing a third, completely unrelated purpose for it, I find to really be too much.

And that's not even mentioning, should godotengine/godot-proposals#4593 be implemented a certain way (and it really should, it'd be a massive usability improvement), autocompletion may display even if the context does not warrant it.

[vnen]

@Mickeon I don't think it's that much of a problem. This context is quite different from the others where % is used, it should be clear from the start that's a different thing. Completion should not be affected by this as it should only show nodes when % is used as a prefix operator.

If there's a lot of the demand I could still change it, but for what I've seen most people are okay with the syntax I implemented here.

[KoBeWi]

Could you maybe add better support for dropping node path?

It should drop without quotes and $.

The relevant code is here:

godot/editor/plugins/script_text_editor.cpp

Lines 1592 to 1617 in 8a21f72

	for (int i = 0; i < nodes.size(); i++) {
	if (i > 0) {
	text_to_drop += ", ";
	}
	NodePath np = nodes[i];
	Node *node = get_node(np);
	if (!node) {
	continue;
	}
	String path;
	if (node->is_unique_name_in_owner()) {
	path = "%" + node->get_name();
	} else {
	path = sn->get_path_to(node);
	}
	for (const String &segment : path.split("/")) {
	if (!segment.is_valid_identifier()) {
	path = path.c_escape().quote(quote_style);
	break;
	}
	}
	text_to_drop += "$" + path;
	}
	}

[reduz]

@vnen This is awesome, you rock!

[vnen]

@KoBeWi I updated the code to improve the drag & drop. Not sure if this works well with instanced scenes, but it can be improved further in the future.

[akien-mga]

Thanks!

[zenvoid]

It's been fine for the $ operator, as accessing Nodes is fairly common in Godot, but introducing another wholy lone operator that does around the same thing, but only works in a "Scene & Node" context may be excessively cramped.

That's also because, in GDScript, % is already used in two wholy different contexts:

• Modulus
• String formatting

Introducing a third, completely unrelated purpose for it, I find to really be too much.

I agree. While it shouldn't be a problem in practical terms, it's starting to look too much like Perl and I find it ugly. "Ugly" being completely subjective, other people seem to like it and that's fine. Not a big problem for me, I can live with it. Just trying to publicly manifest how much I hate this new syntax ;)