Ore dictionary directionality

[patmo98]

In general I have seen four different uses for the ore dictionary:

*) Interchangeability in recipes (Using clear glass in recipes that need glass)

*) Equivalent exchange ( Using a Unifier to change IC2 Copper into TE Copper)

*) Downcasting ( For example, if you could use a Unifier to convert "clear glass" into "glass"

*) Filtering ( Searching in NEI or using Mekanism machines)

 

 

I am willing to do the coding myself and submit a pull request for this idea, but I wanted to check if this had already been shot down.

 

The idea is that when someone registers something in the ore dictionary, they also pass a parameter that tells what dictionary uses are permitted.  (This would probably be an overload so that backwards compatibility isn't broken)

 

 

 

The modes would be:

*) Bi directional (The player can convert from this item or to this item in a unifier.  This is useful for items like copper ingots where the items should be the same)

 

*) Downcast-able (I'm open to suggestions on this name.  This is for items that are more valuable than the normal item, so you let someone predict this item into the "normal" version, but you can't convert to this version.  As an example, you might allow the user to convert TC Clear Glass into Glass, but you don't let the user convert normal Glass into Clear Glass)

 

*) Nonconvertible (You should never be able to convert these items into another type, but they still work for filtering and recipes.  This is used for items like Forestry combs, where it would defeat the purpose of the mod if you could unify one type of comb into another, but you still want to be able to use the dict in a recipe.)

 

 

Is there any interest in this?

[LexManos]

Why? This over complicates the ore dictionary. It's NOTHING more then 'this item stack should be treated IDENTICAL to this item stack'

Anything else people impose on it is just dumb.

[patmo98]

Why? This over complicates the ore dictionary. It's NOTHING more then 'this item stack should be treated IDENTICAL to this item stack'

Anything else people impose on it is just dumb.

 

I agree that people are trying to abuse the ore dictionary for something very different from its original purpose, but I think the number of people doing this shows that there is a real need for something like this.

 

Right now this is causing problems for mod makers because lots of popular mods are using Ore Dictionary in places where the item items are not identical.  That is the problem.

 

If I can implement this cleanly and without breaking backwards compatibility with what is already in place, would you be willing to consider the pull request?

[LexManos]

Not really, there is no good reason for this.

Expanding the dictionary to more than what it is is just a dumb idea.

If there are mods that are using the ore dictionary for more then 'this item is that item' then they are doing it wrong.