Add static method from_scalar to vector 2/3 types.

[WhalesState]

Refactors vector initializations by replacing repeated scalar arguments and redundant operations with from_scalar, making the code shorter, easier to read, and slightly more efficient.

A shorter, more concise name would be appreciated, such as fill, splat, or uniform.

Use cases:

• Temporary variable elimination:

  const real_t radius2 = Math::sqrt(double(new_simplex->circum_r2)) + 0.0001;
  Vector3 extents = Vector3(radius2, radius2, radius2);

  Changed to:

  Vector3 extents = Vector3::from_scalar(Math::sqrt(double(new_simplex->circum_r2)) + 0.0001);

• Line shortening:

  Size2i(options6.ShadingRateImageTileSize, options6.ShadingRateImageTileSize)

  Changed to:

  Size2i::from_scalar(options6.ShadingRateImageTileSize)

• Redundant operation elimination:

  Vector2i(border / 2, border / 2)
  Size2(400, 400) * EDSCALE

  Changed to:

  Vector2i::from_scalar(border / 2)
  Size2::from_scalar(400 * EDSCALE)

• Dummy vector scaling elimination:

  Vector3(1, 1, 1) * cascade.cell_size * probe_cells;

  Changed to:

  Vector3::from_scalar(cascade.cell_size * probe_cells);

• Here's another implementation using constructors which is much better: Add Vector constructors that accepts a single scalar or no arguments. #109687

[fire]

Why is this needed for your project? Historically, we've been explicit on casting vectors.

Can you write a proposal for this enhancement?

[WhalesState]

• Also see: Add Vector constructors that accepts a single scalar or no arguments. #109687 (comment) for the same test results using constructors instead of static method.

[WhalesState]

Why is this needed for your project? Historically, we've been explicit on casting vectors.

Can you write a proposal for this enhancement?

It's nearly the same as using the constructors, no need to write a proposal unless it proves it's useful.

@tool
extends Node2D


func _ready() -> void:
	var time: int = Time.get_ticks_msec()
	for i in 10000000:
		var v1 = Vector2(78 * 2.558, 78 * 2.558)
		var v2 = Vector2(1, 1) * 255.867 * sqrt(2)
		var f = sqrt(4) * 45.5
		var v3 = Vector2(f, f)
	print("Time Before: ", Time.get_ticks_msec() - time)
	time = Time.get_ticks_msec()
	for i in 10000000:
		var v1 = Vector2.from_scalar(78 * 2.558)
		var v2 = Vector2.from_scalar(255.867 * sqrt(2))
		var v3 = Vector2.from_scalar(sqrt(4) * 45.5)
	print("Time After: ", Time.get_ticks_msec() - time)

Time Before: 6868
Time After: 6767

[AThousandShips]

Why not for Vector4(i)

[WhalesState]

Why not for Vector4(i)

I didn’t add it because I couldn’t find any use cases for it in the Godot source at the time. Of course, if you think it would be useful, it can definitely be added, I just wanted to avoid introducing extra API that might not get used.

[AThousandShips]

I think it would be the most useful there and it'd be very confusing to have it in two but not the third

[WhalesState]

• Closing in favor of Add Vector constructors that accepts a single scalar or no arguments. #109687, which already has an associated proposal: Add constructor with accepting a single parameter to initalize all components in Vector godot-proposals#3884.

• We can revisit this if a new proposal is made. For now, I think it’s better to stick with constructors since they’re faster in GDScript and avoid extra static methods that mostly make the code longer. The static version only showed benefits when eliminating temporary variables.

• If someone can show that it performs just as well as using the constructor directly, we can reconsider after running performance comparisons in both C++ and GDScript, with and without optimized builds.

[WhalesState]

Can be optionally implemented later after #110743.