Not sure, but maybe you can define a Drawable class with a method in converting inner state to something draw func could use, so it would be like this: draw :: Drawable a => a -> IO () вторник, 27 ноября 2012 г. пользователь Nathan Hüsken писал:
Hey,
When writing games in other (imperative) languages, I like to separate the game logic from the rendering. For this I use something similar to the observer pattern.
With rendering I mean anything only related to how objects are drawn to the screen. Animation state for example.
On my journey of exploring game programming with haskell (and FRP), I wonder what a good way of archiving something similar would be.
If the rendering has no internal state, one can just write a function
draw :: GameLogicState -> IO ()
But when the rendering of an object has an internal state (e.g. animation frame) than this is not possible.
Now I could write a Wire/Signal (whatever FRP implementation I use) that translates to a RenderingState:
render :: Signal GameLogicState RenderingState draw :: RenderingState -> IO ()
which is fine, except when my game is made of many objects. Than I need to associate the state of one object in GameLogicState with a sub-signal in render. That could be done by giving every object an ID and letting GameLogicState contain a map from IDs to ObjectLogicState.
I fear that when I really have a lot of objects, assembling and decomposing the map could become a major bottleneck.
So I am wondering: Is there (or can someone think of) a different pattern by which this could be archived? Or asked different: How would you do it?
Thanks! Nathan
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org javascript:; http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-- Best Timur DeTeam Amirov Moscow, Russia