You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Update docs of set_if_neq and replace_if_neq (#12919)
# Objective
- ~~This PR adds more flexible versions of `set_if_neq` and
`replace_if_neq` to only compare and update certain fields of a
components which is not just a newtype~~
- #12919 (comment)
gave a good solution to the original problem, so let's update the docs
so that this is easier to find
## Solution
- ~~Add `set_if_neq_with` and `replace_if_neq_with` which take an
accessor closure to access the relevant field~~
---
In a recent project, a scenario emerged that required careful
consideration regarding change detection without compromising
performance. The context involves a component that maintains a
collection of `Vec<Vec2>` representing a horizontal surface, alongside a
height field. When the height is updated, there are a few approaches to
consider:
1. Clone the collection of points to utilize the existing `set_if_neq`
method.
2. Inline and adjust the `set_if_neq` code specifically for this
scenario.
3. (Consider splitting the component into more granular components.)
It's worth noting that the third option might be the most suitable in
most cases.
A similar situation arises with the Bevy internal Transform component,
which includes fields for translation, rotation, and scale. These fields
are relatively small (`Vec3` or `Quat` with 3 or 4 `f32` values), but
the creation of a single pointer (`usize`) might be more efficient than
copying the data of the other fields. This is speculative, and insights
from others could be valuable.
Questions remain:
- Is it feasible to develop a more flexible API, and what might that
entail?
- Is there general interest in this change?
There's no hard feelings if this idea or the PR is ultimately rejected.
I just wanted to put this idea out there and hope that this might be
beneficial to others and that feedback could be valuable before
abandoning the idea.
0 commit comments