[vJass] Struct Destruction

[Uberplayer]

>Well, I don't really get what you guys talking about, or what you guys spamming in my thread.
This is a public thread . But you're right, we should not spam, but we have to until the misunderstoood..ment(?) is solved.

>I proved it, no.
No one said your code had error. Sooda looked it all wrong =). Proof. Sooda forgot the "<=1" from the end.

>It is a integer comparison which will return a boolean.
Well let's say it so then.

 

[~GaLs~]

Okey, solved.

 

[Sooda]

> No one said your code had error. Sooda looked it all wrong =)

I admit, it was my mistake. I didn't know such syntax was allowed.

 

[~GaLs~]

>>I didn't know such syntax was allowed
Nevermind, I may forgive you.

+rep on everyone in this thread.

 

[Magentix]

Ok it seems we misunderstood each other.
Here's what I was trying to point out:


What is read by your compiler:

if GetRandomInt(0,10) <=1 then
    // Syntaxes
endif

// It reads only this:
if GetRandomInt(0,10)
// Now it syntaxes because an integer is not a boolean and thus not "true" or "false"

if (GetRandomInt(0,10) <=1) then
    // Works
endif

// It reads this:
if (GetRandomInt(0,10) <=1)
// Now it doesn't syntax because it actually calculates the comparison first and then uses that as a boolean, which WILL return "true" or "false"

 

[Trollvottel]

well, doesnt syntax for me which jasshelper version do you have?

 

[Magentix]

0.9.9.8? Anyhow: the latest

I've been creating a system lately with a -lot- of "if/then/else"s and every time I didn't put brackets around an integer/real comparison, it gave me an integer2boolean/real2boolean error.

 

[~GaLs~]

Well, I don't know and I don't care, stop spamming on my thread. please.... =.=

 

[Sooda]

> What will happen? Will it work?

Yes it does, you will get struct 1/ 11 times, all other 10 times it will be created and destroyed. What do you want to achieve here?

 

[SerraAvenger]

> What will happen? Will it work?

Yes it does, you will get struct 1/ 11 times, all other 10 times it will be created and destroyed. What do you want to achieve here?

Ummm not really ^^
If you look at it, it will only destroy the struct in the cases 0 and 1; In the other 9 ones it will allocate the struct index.

 

[Sooda]

Again you are right and it' s another way around, but what is point of this all?

 

[~GaLs~]

Don't understand...

 

[Builder Bob]

I think you look too much into the example code Sooda.
~GaLs~ explicitly said that it is only that. An example. Nothing more.

While we'll most likely never see the actual code, I'm sure there's a good reason to the destruction of the struct within the create method.

The real code will probably have input parameters that decides if the struct is destroyed, instead of the randomized destruction in the example.

In my opinion it's a good idea to make the create methods as flexible as possible, so that every time you call .create() in your code you know the struct will figure out the rest.

 

[~GaLs~]

>>While we'll most likely never see the actual code, I'm sure there's a good reason to the destruction of the struct within the create method.
Thats true, and you guys really demand the actual code?

>>every time you call .create() in your code you know the struct will figure out the rest.
True, that's what I was doing. The action function will just call the create of the struct and everything will be ran inside the create method.

 

[Cohadar]

How many times does ~Gals~ need to start a thread with a "what happens if I try something stupid like this" question that wastes time of people with no other reason but to satisfy useless curiosity before someone starts to take some penalizing actions against this erratic behavior?

 

[~GaLs~]

>>How many times does ~Gals~ need to start a thread with a "what happens if I try something stupid like this" question that wastes time of people with no other reason but to satisfy useless curiosity before someone starts to take some penalizing actions against this erratic behavior?
False.
I did not waste time of other people and I am not for staifying.
I am asking is it work if I do like that. The processor won't tell me as it didn't show syntax error.

This totally is not an erratic behavior comparing to yours.
**No offence, really no offence**

 

[emjlr3]

i think i will close this, if anyone feels this can go further w/o such useless babble, feel free the re-open it