System Simulated Hashtable

[kingkingyyk3]

>>You started off with v1, then v1 beta, now you're on alpha...
First 2 versions are pre-v1.

>>Why?
Removed in new version

>>Also, there's a collision if I do something like this:
It should works well in new version without any collision.

Beta is released!

 

[Romek]

> First 2 versions are pre-v1.
All alpha and betas are pre-v1.
v1 -> Beta -> Alpha -> Beta again. Great.

Why the retarded naming convention in the StorageStruct?

    local StorageStruct H = GetStoredInteger(TABLE,I2S(parent),I2S(child))
    return H.i[ht]

Could be:

    return StorageStruct(GetStoredInteger(TABLE,I2S(parent),I2S(child))).i[ht]

Also, how about something like this, to avoid the horrible arrays?

.
    function SaveInteger takes hashtable table, integer parentKey, integer childKey, integer value returns nothing
        call StoreInteger(hashtable.gc, SubString(I2S(integer(table)) + "____", 0, 4) + I2S(parentKey), I2S(childKey), value)
    endfunction
    
    function LoadInteger takes hashtable table, integer parentKey, integer childKey returns integer
        return GetStoredInteger(hashtable.gc, SubString(I2S(integer(table)) + "____", 0, 4) + I2S(parentKey), I2S(childKey))
    endfunction

 

[kingkingyyk3]

v1 -> Beta -> Alpha -> Beta again. Great.


Also, how about something like this, to avoid the horrible arrays?
Fixed.

See the new v1.

~Bump~

 

[GetTriggerUnit-]

Why would someone have an older version than 1.23b?

People living in certain countries still can't download it. >>ME<<

 

[kingkingyyk3]

People living in certain countries still can't download it.

Me too..

 

[Tyrande_ma3x]

> People living in certain countries still can't download it.
Where the hell are you living then?
I'm sure you can find an original CD Key and update your Warcraft through Westfall or just wait for a formal release of it and download it from Blizzard's site.

 

[GetTriggerUnit-]

Canada, server westfall just not there.
And anyways, I don't use GetHHandleId(), only TimerUtils.

 

[kingkingyyk3]

I need to wait official release.

 

[_whelp]

Isn't I2H bad?

 

[T.s.e]

Yes. It can corrupt the handle index, giving two handles the same id.

 

[kingkingyyk3]

If you use it properly, it won't.

 

[Jesus4Lyf]

What a dumb thing to say without explaining to users how to use it "properly". Do you know how to use it properly? I don't know how to use it properly. Is it used properly in your system? Does it effect how users should use your system?

There's a much better alternative, anyway...

struct UnitStruct
    unit u
endstruct

For each unit to store, attach a struct wrapper of it. It's safe.

 

[_whelp]

Yeah, isn't it also faster than I2H?

 

[kingkingyyk3]

What a dumb thing to say without explaining to users how to use it "properly". Do you know how to use it properly? I don't know how to use it properly. Is it used properly in your system? Does it effect how users should use your system?

There's a much better alternative, anyway...

struct UnitStruct
    unit u
endstruct

For each unit to store, attach a struct wrapper of it. It's safe.

Okay. I will improve it.

Yeah, isn't it also faster than I2H?
I2H vs array, which is faster? I think you know it.

 

[wraithseeker]

Well I don't

 

[kingkingyyk3]

Well, when I start editing the code... I found it is no need to change since it uses different strings on different handles.

Classic example :

Attach unit to hashtable :

StoreInteger(hashtable,timer,1,unit)

Assume : hashtable's id : 30, timer id's : 104852, unit's id : 102222

The system will attaches to gamecache by using :
Mission key -> 104852_30_UnitData
key -> 1

It is safe.

 

[Jesus4Lyf]

Yeah, isn't it also faster than I2H?
I2H vs array, which is faster? I think you know it.

I don't know what you were insinuating, but arrays are definitely faster.

Your explanation has nothing to do with safety of handle stack corruption. What are you on about?

Change your code for both or either reason, or I say +Graveyard vote. -_-

Seriously, I2H is a noob's way of doing things. It's not fast or stable, kingking...

 

[Jesus4Lyf]

Cool.

function Load$Type$Handle takes hashtable ht, integer parent, integer child returns $type$
    return $Type$Data(GetStoredInteger(TABLE,I2S(parent)+"_"+I2S(ht)+"$Type$Data",I2S(child))).h
    return null
endfunction

No return null, then this should inline.

And your FlushHashtable thing doesn't appear to flush anything. Just destroys the struct... <_<

 

[kingkingyyk3]

And your FlushHashtable thing doesn't appear to flush anything. Just destroys the struct... <_<
Huh? If I put flushing here, I should need a history storing record...

 

[Troll-Brain]

I'm just wondering, will it be finished one day, before the official patch release ?