We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Example of what I am seeing in 1.20 Yarn BiomeTags class:
Personally, I feel this is a cause where it should break out of the <inner_tag>_<outer_folder> format in favor of cleaner readability.
In this case, I propose HAS_<inner_tag>. Or HAS_STRUCTURE_<inner_tag> which still reads better that current situation
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Another possible format is HAS_<inner_tag>_STRUCTURE just for completeness.
So
HAS_STRONGHOLD HAS_STRONGHOLD_ STRUCTURE HAS_STRUCTURE_STRONGHOLD
Just should ideally start with HAS_
Sorry, something went wrong.
FYI, these names are automatically generated in this format by name-proposal. The mappings for that class look pretty empty:
yarn/mappings/net/minecraft/registry/tag/BiomeTags.mapping
Lines 1 to 3 in b0581c6
No branches or pull requests
Example of what I am seeing in 1.20 Yarn BiomeTags class:
Personally, I feel this is a cause where it should break out of the <inner_tag>_<outer_folder> format in favor of cleaner readability.
In this case, I propose HAS_<inner_tag>. Or HAS_STRUCTURE_<inner_tag> which still reads better that current situation
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: