var/Mail_System/M_S = new /Mail_System/
the same as..
var/Maiil_System/M_S = /Mail_System/
?
ID:170946
![]() Nov 26 2004, 5:26 pm
|
|
Hey, is..
var/Mail_System/M_S = new /Mail_System/ the same as.. var/Maiil_System/M_S = /Mail_System/
? |
![]() Nov 26 2004, 5:28 pm
|
|
No.
|
Lenox wrote:
Hey, is.. > var/Mail_System/M_S = new /Mail_System/ the same as.. > var/Maiil_System/M_S = /Mail_System/ ? It's the difference between having an actual computer or having a piece of paper with the word "computer" on it. |
Just to elaborate on the other answers, both of those lines are in fact legal. The second one is however just a type path. If you set the var to a type path, DM won't complain, but if you go to use any vars belonging to M_S, DS will give you a runtime error because you only set it to a type path instead of a real datum.
The trailing slash in your type paths is unnecessary, but doesn't hurt anything. Lummox JR |
Aiight, thank you for explaining why it's like that so I know, I was sort of confused about that. EDIT: What if I go to store the instance of a Datum in a var, how would I do that?
|
To store an instance of a datum? You'd do this.
var/datum/D = new/datum You could also do this: var/D = new/datum You'd get a compilation error, as DM doesn't interpret D as an instnace of a datum, it's just a normal variable. |
Ter13 wrote:
To store an instance of a datum? You'd do this. > var/datum/D = new/datum You could also do this: > var/D = new/datum But it isn't cast as a datum, meaning if you did this: > if(D.type==/datum) You'd get a compilation error, as DM doesn't interpret D as an instnace of a datum, it's just a normal variable. Aiight, Thank you. |