booleans, can I do this?
 

with the 2 checks?

Try this:

I agree on the player.level.name fix, but adding another bracket around it was just stupid. :noob:

It wasn't stupid, adding a parentheses around the entire expression was the pointless part.

This will work just find:

If you did want to keep those parentheses though, you could do something even cooler:

The comma operator will automatically parse the whole set of arguments and end whatever expression you put in the first argument of the function unless there is an unbalanced/unclosed parentheses (which should be fixed anyways). You can leave extra parentheses though, it just can be rather difficult (or at least annoying) when dealing with 3+ sets of them nested together.

Holy crap what's wrong with you people.

That script may work but it looks horrible.

When you script you need to consider that other people will be reading your script in the future. Don't over-complicate things just because you can.

Fixed. :rolleyes:


Also, I'm not agreeing with the way he did it, but the thread wasn't made to argue about that.

Now it's fixed. Mixing styles like you did looks bad too.
Doesn't matter why the thread was made. A bad habit (imho) shouldn't be encouraged.

Ignoring it completely isn't the same as encouraging, which I definitely wasn't doing, as you can see in my first post in the thread.

Wow.

It may be over complicated for you, but it looks fine to me.

I agree. I fail to understand how a common alternative syntax to if statements would be "complicated" to anyone. If they fail to read it correctly then I don't want them touching my code anyways.

I do agree that they should not be used beyond one level of nesting though, because then the same syntax is being used multiple times in one line which can be an eyesore.

He was asking for if he could do it with booleans, as in not an if(){}else{}.

If you think about it, if statements are just a form of writing booleans. I can understand something==somethingelse?function:anotherfunction, but if else statements are much easier to read.

It's all opinion in the end of it.

And guess which version 95% of all programmers would chose?

I wouldn't know. I'm a bit of an amatuer when it comes to coding practices. Please tell me what 95 percent of programmer would choose :)

Why, yours of course.

I wasn't asking for a better/neater way to do it.
I wasn't even planning on using that code. I was writing a boolean then realized I had to add another "if statement" and I wondered if it's even possible.

and I've used just player.level for the longest time and it works fine. what exactly does adding the .name do?

player.level is an object, player.level.name refers to the name of that object.

Indeed, I think the reason you can still compare player.level to a string is because either Stefan is compensating some how or its comparing with the object's name when you have a string in some weird way that Stefan doesn't bother to document for us.
Elaborate
what makes you think it is over complicated for me?

I apologize for thinking that other people may not be able to understand such things as easily or as quickly as myself.

I also apologize for suggesting to use code that is clearer at first glance and doesn't require you to scroll so far to see the whole statement.

You're totally right.

I think it's just "converting" to a string whenever appropriate, which isn't entirely uncommon for a programming language to do. This works for TServerNPC and TServerPlayer as well.

These are things I would like Stefan to document.