Multi-Dimensional Arrays

[cbk1994]

It would be great if there was a way to get all index out of a multi-dimensional array. I don't really know how to word this ...

For example,

PHP Code:

temp.staff = {
                    {"cbk1994", "Scripter"},
                    {"PepperTheCat", "Management"}
                  };

temp.staffIndex = staff.getIndexes[0].index(@ player.account);
if (staffIndex > -1) {
  temp.position = staff[staffIndex[1]];
  player.chat = "You are staff:" SPC position;
} 


Instead, something like this has to be used:

PHP Code:

temp.staff = {
                    {"cbk1994", "Scripter"},
                    {"PepperTheCat", "Management"}
                  };

temp.staffIndex = null;

for (temp.member : staff) {
  if (member[0] == player.account) {
    staffIndex = staff.index(@ member);
  }
}

if (staffIndex > -1) {
  temp.position = staff[staffIndex[1]];
  player.chat = "You are staff:" SPC position;
} 


I thought there was a way to do this, but Skyld didn't know of one, and neither did any of the other people I asked.

[WhiteDragon]

Not entirely sure, but just a note, it would probably make more sense to use a hash (TStaticVar/TGraalVar) in this case:

PHP Code:

temp.staff = new TStaticVar();
temp.staff.cbk1994 = "Scripter";
temp.staff.PepperTheCat = "Management";

temp.playerPosition = temp.staff.(@ player.account);
if (temp.playerPosition != null)
  player.chat = "You are staff:" SPC temp.playerPosition; 


[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by WhiteDragon

Not entirely sure, but just a note, it would probably make more sense to use a hash (TStaticVar/TGraalVar) in this case:

PHP Code:

temp.staff = new TStaticVar();
temp.staff.cbk1994 = "Scripter";
temp.staff.PepperTheCat = "Management";

temp.playerPosition = temp.staff.(@ player.account);
if (temp.playerPosition != null)
  player.chat = "You are staff:" SPC temp.playerPosition; 


Agreed, though there are still cases where this might be needed.

[Skyld]

Typically in languages like PHP, an associative array would be used for this purpose ($staff["Skyld"] = "Global Scripting Admin";) except GScript does not sport this functionality. About the best I can suggest is to use a TStaticVar-esque table like WhiteDragon suggested, since it's about the closest to an associative array as you'll get in GScript.

[Inverness]

I expect that a hash table is used for storing the variables of an object, so a TStaticVar is a good choice in that situation.

As I was typing that I just had an idea about associative arrays. I think that in the case of an object, 'a["b"]' would map to 'a.b'. This would allow people to use a more appropriate syntax so it is obvious the coder is using the object as an associative array. In the case where b is a number, it would map to 'a.index<b>' (without brackets).

Example:

staff = new TStaticVar();
staff.timeout = 5;
staff["timeout"] = 5; // same as the previous

staff.(@ "lol" @ 3) = "pancake";
staff["lol" @ 3] = "pancake"; // same as the previous, but clearer (imho)

staff[5] = "five";
echo("5: " @ staff.index5); // example of how number is mapped to variable name

[WhiteDragon]

I'm not a really a fan of the syntax you're suggesting Inverness. All subvariables are referenced the same way with all the objects, there is no reason to adopt that syntax simply because a few other languages use it.

Technically an Array is a subtype of a TStaticVar already, although I'm not sure if the engine changes how it handles them (hash, linked list, etc). I'm not sure if you could still access the variables with the subvariable syntax either, but their might be a (undocumented) way to.

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by WhiteDragon

I'm not a really a fan of the syntax you're suggesting Inverness. All subvariables are referenced the same way with all the objects, there is no reason to adopt that syntax simply because a few other languages use it.

Technically an Array is a subtype of a TStaticVar already, although I'm not sure if the engine changes how it handles them (hash, linked list, etc). I'm not sure if you could still access the variables with the subvariable syntax either, but their might be a (undocumented) way to.

This would apply to objects, not arrays. Technicalities are irrelevant in this case.

The new syntax would show how you intend to use the object. If we did it like this, then I would never have to use the ugly var.(@ "something") because you have a more proper way to mimic dynamic variables.

[WhiteDragon]

Originally Posted by Inverness

This would apply to objects, not arrays. Technicalities are irrelevant in this case.

I was talking about objects. The second paragraph was just something I was pointing out in addition.

Originally Posted by Inverness

The new syntax would show how you intend to use the object.

Originally Posted by Inverness

more proper way

You do realize that all of these statements are subjective? They can all be answered by this nifty statement I had in my post:

Originally Posted by WhiteDragon

there is no reason to adopt that syntax simply because a few other languages use it.

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by WhiteDragon

You do realize that all of these statements are subjective? They can all be answered by this nifty statement I had in my post:

Do you have a better syntax recommendation for showing the reader that you intend to use an object as an associative array, one that is an alternative to the current object.(@ "varname")?

Are you complaining about the syntax itself, or the suggestion?

[WhiteDragon]

Originally Posted by Inverness

Do you have a better syntax recommendation for showing the reader that you intend to use an object as an associative array, one that is an alternative to the current object.(@ "varname")?

Are you complaining about the syntax itself, or the suggestion?

The suggestion. Why should there be an alternate syntax?
An associative array is a mapping of series of keys to their values, which happens to be what a hash does.
The way Graal chooses to handle this is with subvariables. Introducing the alternate syntax would only make things more confusing and suggest that there is actually a difference between the syntaxes when there isn't.

[xXziroXx]

I made a thread about the same thing last week.

http://forums.graalonline.com/forums...ad.php?t=83824