Fix naming conventions concerning Key #80
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
Rarity does not reference a dat and therefore does not hold key information
|
It actually references Rarity.dat I believe. Enums are just a way of reimplementing those empty dat files at the moment, there might be more to them however; I'd rather not remove the key. |
|
This PR includes two commits. Should I reopen with 00d6161 only or why was this rejected too? |
|
yeah |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Improves *Key naming should reference another *.dat file.
Maybe this is problematic for certain tools if
enumandkeyinformation is mixed. At least forRarityKeyit's pretty obvious that this is not a key information.