Not quite sure when this changed, but I'm fairly sure isMouseOver wasn't
a thing when I wrote this. Or I'm a plonker. Both are possible.
Also fixes mouse dragging not being handled in turtles.
Fixes#299
Closes#293. Doesn't really solve anything there aside from exposing the
number, but sadly there's not really anything obvious I can do on my end
- the command API just doesn't expose anything else.
- Adds cc.completions module, with a couple of helper functions for
working with the more general completion functionality (i.e. that
provided by read).
- Adds cc.shell.completions module, which provides shell-specific
completion functions.
- Add a "program completion builder", which allows you to write stuff
like this:
shell.setCompletionFunction( "rom/programs/redstone.lua",
completion.build(
{ completion.choice, { "probe", "set ", "pulse " } },
completion.side) )
Closes#232
It appears several mods inject their own drops on the LOWEST priority,
meaning that we capture the existing drops, and the other mod will clear
the (now empty) drop list and add its own, resulting in dupe bugs.
While I'd argue it's somewhat dubious doing this on the LOWEST priority,
it's not a battle I'm prepared to fight. For now, we just remove the
block/entity drop handlers, and handle all drop logic when entities are
spawned.
Fixes#288
This is the behaviour on 1.14 already, so it makes sense to backport to
1.12.
Any mod may now insert files into assets/computercraft/lua/rom, and
they'll be automatically added to the default ROM mount. This allows
other mods to easily register new programs or autorun files.
See #242
Lua 5.2+ uses loadfile(filename, mode, env), not loadfile(filename,
env). While this is a minor incompatibility, it'd be nice to be
consistent as much as possible.
We try to handle the incorrect case too, as obviously we don't want to
break existing programs.
This moves expect from the bios into a new craftos.expect module,
removing the internal _G["~expect"] definition. Apparently people were
using this irrespective of the "don't use this" comment, so we need to
find another solution.
While this does introduce some ugliness (having to load the module in
weird ways for programs, duplicating the expect function in memory), it
does allow people to use the function in a supported way, and removes
the global ugliness.
I'm not entirely sure how useful all of these will be yet - still
trying to work out what/when to test things, but hopefully this'll
be a useful datapoint.
