System Quick Damage Detection

[Azlier]

You should use Event. It's the perfect thing for, well, events. It resists null triggers, destroyed triggers, the universe, and everything.

 

[RaiJin]

The point is, users can pass null triggers...

And guess what? The last time I checked, that ISN'T good.

Do you follow me?

who in gods name would pass a null trigger, but w/e ill change it

@aizler ok ill check it out

 

[Sevion]

who in gods name would pass a null trigger, but w/e ill change it

Once again, that is NOT the point.

 

[Jesus4Lyf]

Ok ill implement Event in this

When? Because this null trigger thing would be irrelevant with it. And your custom event structure is still wrong. Use it, please.

 

[RaiJin]

system now uses Event created by jesus4lyfe

heres a link to Event by Jesus

http://www.thehelper.net/forums/showthread.php?t=126846

 

[Jesus4Lyf]

Well done. You'll want to put that link on the front page with the system for people.

 

[Romek]

You can use Event Responses normally in the triggers you register this event to.
There's no need for those globals.

 

[RaiJin]

You can use Event Responses normally in the triggers you register this event to.
There's no need for those globals.

really? becaues last time i tried that i got a null unit but that was without using Event. Ill make a quick update then

 

[RaiJin]

Ok 1.05 now juts quickly updated it

*Removed the 3 globals
*Can Detect Structures being hit
*Shortened Code

 

[Romek]

private function INIT_GROUP takes nothing returns boolean
    call TriggerRegisterUnitEvent(QDD_Trigger, GetFilterUnit(), EVENT_UNIT_DAMAGED)
    return false
endfunction

private function ENTER_RECT takes nothing returns boolean
    call TriggerRegisterUnitEvent(QDD_Trigger, GetFilterUnit(), EVENT_UNIT_DAMAGED)
    return false
endfunction

I guess you're unaware that you could use one of those functions for both purposes?
(Also that two identical functions are useless)

 

[RaiJin]

Updated.

 

[Jesus4Lyf]

Lol, sorry to do this but...

//$ - JESUS4LYFE for letting me use Event <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />

No "e" on the end, bro... It's just Jesus4Lyf. Heh. :thup:
But thanks.

 

[RaiJin]

Lol, sorry to do this but...

//$ - JESUS4LYFE for letting me use Event <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />

No "e" on the end, bro... It's just Jesus4Lyf. Heh. :thup:
But thanks.

xD my bad i changed it

 

[Gwypaas]

Why should I use this instead of this or this or this or ORBEngine in this map

 

[Jesus4Lyf]

Well, this uses H2I and so does this (although indirectly, but it uses Table, so this wont be 1.23b AND 1.23 compatible).

But yes, I'd like to see him answer that question too. I thought people had this down to a fine art. Heh.

 

[Gwypaas]

When the 1.23b patch comes it's just to change the H2I calls to GetHandleId() which return the exact same values as H2I, so no damage done to any of thoose systems. Maybe you should look into the 1.23b patch more before you make suchs statements.

So your "scare" for H2I ain't viable anymore

 

[RaiJin]

Why should I use this instead of this or this or this or ORBEngine in this map

i don't know xD use the one you prefer, but this system is a short sweet simple system and i don't compare my codes to other codes.

 

[Jesus4Lyf]

Maybe you should look into the 1.23b patch more before you make suchs statements.

That's a bit arrogant, since the only point I was making was they wouldn't be "1.23b AND 1.23 compatible". Of course I've looked into the patch.

So your "scare" for H2I ain't viable anymore

So, apparently you mistook my problem with H2I - people using H2I-0x100000. GetHandleId-0x100000 is just as bad.

 

[Gwypaas]

So, apparently you mistook my problem with H2I - people using H2I-0x100000. GetHandleId-0x100000 is just as bad.

With the new hashtable handle we don't have that problem.... And the only problem you can ever get with using the 0x100000 method is indexing out of bounds and that can easily be solved if you know what you are doing.

That's a bit arrogant, since the only point I was making was they wouldn't be "1.23b AND 1.23 compatible". Of course I've looked into the patch.

Almost no system up to date will be both 1.23 and 1.23b compatable so why even try to use that as an argument?

and i don't compare my codes to other codes.

The user will do it.

 

[Romek]

Approved.
This is a simple, small code which does what it's meant to do without any extra features.