Struggle Problem

ID:264664
 
Feb 21 2010, 9:39 pm (Edited on Feb 21 2010, 9:45 pm)
Code:
         Bump(atom/M)
                if(istype(M,/obj/Skills/Kamehameha/Head))
                    M.Struggling=1
                    src.Struggling=1
                    if(src.Owner.Ki>=M.Owner.Ki)
                        world<<"lol"


Problem description:

Skills\Kamehameha.dm:41:error: M.Struggling: undefined var
Skills\Kamehameha.dm:43:error: M.Owner.Ki: undefined var

How do i fix it? :/

Feb 21 2010, 10:15 pm
 
Bump(atom/M)
    if(istype(M,/obj/Skills/Kamehameha/Head))
        var/obj/Skills/Kamehameha/Head/H = M
        H.Struggling=1
        src.Struggling=1
        if(src.Owner.Ki>=H.Owner.Ki)
            world<<"lol"
Feb 22 2010, 6:25 am
If you originally defined M as an atom (as in Bump(atom/M)) but want to use a variable that is only defined to one atom type (in this case a mob), first put in a check to make sure you are dealing with a mob (which you did).

After that, you can use a colon instead of a period when referencing variables that aren't directly defined for all atoms.

So the line
M.Struggling=1
would be
M:Struggling=1

This attempts to locate that variable on M. If you are accessing the wrong mob type, it would give you the error at runtime, but since you included

if(istype(M,/obj/Skills/Kamehameha/Head))

It should work okay. Do the same for M:Owner.
Feb 22 2010, 9:46 am
In response to Gunbuddy13
However, it's much better practice to just store it in a variable of the appropriate type, so the compiler can throw errors at you rather than having to hunt them at runtime, which is ALWAYS worse. So:

obj/Bump(atom/A)
  if(istype(A, /mob))
    var/mob/M = A
    M.key = "BLAH" // whatever


The colon operator really isn't something you should ever be using except, perhaps, when dealing with types that do not actually exist (such as appearance objects).
Feb 22 2010, 3:15 pm
In response to Garthor
I personally have always preferred to use the : operator. As long as you use if(istype(blablah)) to make sure you are accessing the proper atom, it shouldn't cause any problems. Defining a second atom of the right type just creates more variables to deal with and takes more code, neither of which I am a fan of.

For beginners though, I can see why it would help to do it the way you described.
Feb 22 2010, 3:19 pm
In response to Gunbuddy13
"Shouldn't" cause any problems and "doesn't" cause any problems are two different things. The purpose of the . operator is that it checks whether the variable or procedure you are attempting to access even exists in that context. Using the : operator bypasses this.

Defining more variables to deal with is a silly argument because you are no longer using the first variable at all: var/mob/M has replaced var/atom/A. Complaining about it being "more code" is even sillier, as it's ONE LINE.

And no, this isn't "for beginners". This is "for everybody". It is a GOOD PRACTICE, not a "BUH BUH BUH I NO WUR IM DOIN SOZ I KAN IGNUR DIZ". That doesn't even make sense, but I don't care because it's just THAT DUMB.

Basically, your whole argument is equivalent to saying "Oh yeah while() is good 'for beginners' but I prefer to use goto". It's objectively wrong and you need to stop suggesting otherwise before I figure out a way to get people banned from How-To and Code Problems for providing bad advice.
Feb 22 2010, 3:59 pm
In response to Garthor
Garthor wrote:
before I figure out a way to get people banned from How-To and Code Problems for providing bad advice.

It's not terribly hard, if they're amazingly bad. I believe it happened to Superbike32.

Twice.
Feb 22 2010, 8:26 pm
In response to Popisfizzy
ok, Thanks and Lol