how do I make it possible to use the verb Eat like this:
I want the verb eat to be specified, directly under obj.
The verb should print "You eat [src]" or something like that, then it should call a proc on the object digested to see what happens to the object and the mob whos eating.
how do I do this?
or do I have to do it some other way?
ID:180811
 Feb 13 2001, 9:48 am
|
|
food
verb eat() usr << "You eat [src]" src.eating bread loaf name = "loaf of bread" icon = 'loafofbread.dmi' desc = "a loaf of bread" var size = 4 proc eating() var/size = size - 1 bread name = "piece of bread" icon = 'pieceofbread.dmi' desc = "a piece of bread" this is my code, when i try to compile it gives me these warnings: src is an unused label eating is an unused label what should I do? I am a total newbie. | |
src.eating Since eating is a proc call, put parentheses after it: src.eating() proc You don't need "var/" before size here. Also, the line needs to be indented one more tab. Offhand, those are the only two things I noticed. Give it a try and we'll see! | |
here is the updated code:
food verb eat() usr << "You eat [src]" src.eating() bread loaf name = "loaf of bread" icon = 'loafofbread.dmi' desc = "a loaf of bread" var size = 4 proc eating() size =size-1 now I recieve the following errors: code\objects.dm:26:error:size :duplicate definition code\objects.dm:23:error:size :previous definition code\objects.dm:26:error:size:invalid variable code\objects.dm:26:error:= :expected a constant expression code\objects.dm:16:error:src.eating:bad proc what is wrong? | |
bread Looks like it's still an indentation problem. Try this... bread | |
tried it and now I only get one error:
code\objects.dm:16:error:src.eating:bad proc this is the code reffered to: food verb eat() usr << "You eat [src]" src.eating() i can't see anything wrong in it. | |
On 2/13/01 12:46 pm Kaidorin wrote:
tried it and now I only get one error: Oops, missed that one! The problem is that your definition of the eating() proc is defined under bread. You need to move it out so that it's under food. Just move the whole proc to the left (select the lines of the proc and type SHIFT and TAB together to move the whole block at once). It should line up so that eat's 'verb' and eating's 'proc' are on the same level of indentation. | |
how I am supposed to include different actions depending on what is eaten?
it seems to me like the now revised code, runs the same proc nomatter what is eaten, correct? if so then I need help on defining the different actions that should take place for the different types of food. | |
how I am supposed to include different actions depending on what is eaten? One way is: add a line to your basic "eating" proc, to call a proc called CustomEating or whatever. Like so: food proc/eating() size -= 1 CustomEating() proc/CustomEating() //this proc is just a stub that says all food types will have it... but no one is going to eat plain old "food"! bread CustomEating() usr << "Mmm, starchy!" egg CustomEating() usr << "That was one fine embryo!" ostrich_egg CustomEating() usr << "Burp!" | |
On 2/13/01 1:23 pm Kaidorin wrote:
is it possible to call CustomEating directly, ie replacing the eating? I think you are asking if you can take another approach where you just have one kind of eating function that is customized for each food. Yup, that's totally doable, like so: food proc/eating() & amp;nbsp; // This is where the eating function is defined for all food. & amp;nbsp; // If some food has special requirements, it can provide it's own eating() function. & amp;nbsp; size -= 1 bread & amp;nbsp; eating() & amp;nbsp; // Because eating was defined as a proc under food, & amp;nbsp; & amp;nbsp; // add eating() to bread without saying proc. & amp;nbsp; u sr << "Mmm, starchy!" & amp;nbsp; // That was our custom functionality...but we still want to call & amp;nbsp; // the superclass (food) eating() function to let it do its thing. & amp;nbsp; // We do that by calling ..() & amp;nbsp; ..() egg & amp;nbsp; eating() & amp;nbsp; u sr << "That was one fine embryo!" & amp;nbsp; ..() & amp;nbsp; o strich_egg & amp;nbsp; & amp;nbsp; eating() & amp;nbsp; & amp;nbsp; & amp;nbsp; usr << "Burp!" & amp;nbsp; & amp;nbsp; & amp;nbsp; ..() Now if you use this code you will see why Guy chose to use two functions...because when you eat an ostrich egg, it calls its superclass with ..(), and the superclass of the ostrich egg proc is egg.eating(), when then calls IT'S superclass, so you end up doing this: Burp! That was one fine embryo! [subtract 1] You might have only wanted to burp and subtract one instead of also doing the egg.eating() proc too. In that case, Guy's approach works better. | |
On 2/13/01 1:23 pm Kaidorin wrote:
is it possible to call CustomEating directly, ie replacing the eating? Yep, though you'd have to add the size -= 1 to every food's CustomEating proc. Actually, there is a better way to do it, using calls to the parent proc. How about this: food proc/CustomEating() size-- bread CustomEating() . = ..() usr << "Yum!" (I was trying to hold back on the advanced techniques, but what the heck... you gotta learn it sooner or later. Besides, I think it's described in the reference somewhere. :) | |
oh, don't bother about the last question. I've figured it out.
Guy T, thanks a lot for all the help with this. I really mean it. It is incredible actually, that all you guys (pardon the pun) have the patience to answer questions from the newbies. I really think that is so great. Once again, thank you Guy T!!! | |
food hold back on the advanced techniques a little longer, the above went straight over my head. To stick to the above subject, I have a question: How do I test an objs vars in a proc? I want the eat() to see if the obj has a size above 1 and then print "you eat a part of" else print "you eat". | |
It is incredible actually, that all you guys (pardon the pun) have the patience to answer questions from the newbies. It's worth it when the new games come out! :) | |
On 2/13/01 1:39 pm Kaidorin wrote:
food proc/CustomEating() if(size > 1) usr << "You eat a part of [src]." else if(size == 1) usr << "You eat [src]." spawn (1) del src size-- if(size >= 0) return 1 bread CustomEating() . = ..() if(.) usr << "Mmm, bread!" The only tricky part of this is the spawn() part. I'm telling DM to wait a tick (1/10 second) before deleting the object. Why? Because otherwise, the specific CustomEating() would not get a chance to print "Mmm!" It would stop immediately as soon as its src was killed. Actually, there is another tricky part too... this proc will also handle the very unlikely case where the user issues another "eat" command during the time between the spawn command and the actual deletion of the object. But that's a story for another time! :) | |
It's worth it when the new games come out! :) you've got a point. my game will take some time, the only thing in it right now is: a guy a piece of bread a loaf of bread a shirt they all exist in a world consisting of: grass snow stone wall have you noticed that I like to make lists like those above ;) | |
what exactly does the spawn(1) do?
could you plz explain this in more detail: size-- if(size >= 0) return 1 bread CustomEating() . = ..() if(.) usr << "Mmm, bread!" thanks for all the help so far | |
what exactly does the spawn(1) do? All activity in BYOND takes place in "ticks". There are 10 ticks per second. spawn(1) means "wait one tick before executing the following code". If you type spawn in a dm file and press F1, you should get a Reference entry with additional info. could you plz explain this in more detail: size-- is the same as: size = size - 1 or even: size -= 1 (-- and -= should both be in the Refc. too.) . is the default return value of the proc. So these two procs would behave the same: proc/A() . = 1 proc/B() return 1 Both of these will return 1. So, what I was doing in the sample was checking to see whether the parent proc (which was doing all the size checking) returned 1 (which in this case meant that the user did in fact take a bite of it). If so, I'd print "Mmm", but otherwise I'd know that the food was already all eaten, and we were just waiting for it to be deleted (and somehow the user was quick enough to sneak in one more "eat" command... it would be more useful if were were waiting a few seconds to delete the food, instead of 1/10 second). Truth be told, I didn't write the proc real cleanly. :) | |
Now you know how to do this already!
Go back to the equip verb discussion, and you'll see that all the info you need is there.