2 steps forward, 3 steps back. I have everything working now except for my function to pass afflictions about the script. I have been working with it all day, and I thought I had it fixed once, but I just had a workaround that did nothing productive, and not a fix. This is the function it it's entirety.



I have the following alias which prints what is in the affs table: I think the if v == true thing is a bit rendundent since if it is true it is in the table, if it is not true it is nil, and not in the table, though I am hoping I can pass something like "curing" to the val, so that I can have a curing check to try and foil stupidity and such.


I have tried everything I can think of to get the trigger line for paralysis to pass into the function. I know I can add it into the table by doing:

Notice the second one is what the function is supposed to do...

I want to pass the affliction to the function, and let the function add it to the table. The logic being I can just edit the function later when I think of something cool I would like (like a check for something...) to do, instead of having to edit each little trigger line.

For some reason, as of yet unknown to me, things like:

do not work... I have tried the function as "addaff(aff, val)" and ass addaff(aff,val)" and nothing.

According to the function instructions found on the Lua users wiki, this looks syntactically correct, and it passed the compile, and does not return any errors or script errors in Lusternia...

In place of "affs = val" should be:

The previous method was making a table entry with "aff" as the key, no matter what you were passing it.

I have the following alias which prints what is in the affs table: I think the if v == true thing is a bit rendundent since if it is true it is in the table, if it is not true it is nil, and not in the table, though I am hoping I can pass something like "curing" to the val, so that I can have a curing check to try and foil stupidity and such.
v == true is redundant and slows the processor, I believe.
All you need is:

That is a faster way of asking "If v is equal to true."
Similarly:

means "if v is not equal to true."



Also, in your example, "addaff(paralysis, true)" is trying to pass the contents of a variable called "paralysis."

CODE

addaff("paralysis", true)

Hppe this helps.

That was immense help! I was able to fix it but now I can not make them nil with addaff. I suppose I should make a removeaff function for that?

Remember this piece of code in the addaff function:

Basically, you are setting val to true when val is either false or nil. By removing that code you should be able to pass nil, and it should remove the entry from the table.
On the other hand, a removeaff function will probably make your code more easily to read, when you use it. So you should probably create such a function


In response to Theomar. (With whom I agree on all other accounts. )

is not the same as

This is basically due to how Lua deals with booleans. Nil and false are both considered false, all the other values are considered true.
So in the first case, the code in the if block would only be executed when v has the exact value true.
In the second case, the code in the if block would be executed when v has the value true, or contains a table or contains a string.

And really you should not be worried about any difference in speed between the two cases. Even if there is a speed difference, I wouldn't know which would be faster. Any way, it is more important to have code you can easily read and understand, then any tiny, not noticeable processor use difference.

In this specific case, it does not matter which of the two pieces of code is used, since the table will not contain anything except true. Either one of them will work.

Ahh thank you so much!

Will I be able to (in the future) pass say... curing, as a value.

The logic being something like; I want to be able to set a third value for certain afflictions, or maybe all of them, such that any one aff can be:

The problem, in my mind, for the above, would be having to trigger every line to do more than one thing, which I seem to not be able to do. (like set the focus balance recovery line to do . Also having each trigger do more than one thing like this might be incredibly system-slowing in the long run.

That is my idea for handling things like stupidity. If I send a cure and it goes in but no restore comes soon enough, it goes back to true, assuming stupidity or a message caused it to fail. I am not sure if this is doable in practice, or as of yet how I would do it, or even if it is practical from a coding standpoint. But it sounds good on paper.

You could certainly use "curing" as a value for the affliction, but again be sure that you put the quotes around it and treat it as a string or else you're telling Lua to use the value of the curing variable (which may or may not exist).

Doing multiple things in a trigger is very simple, so I'm not sure why you'd have problems with it. Just put multiple lines in your trigger code. If it's something you do in many places, you can generalize it with a function and keep the repetitiveness down to a minimum.

So I would be passing this as something like:


I figured it out, improper syntax and an incorrect use of the "and" operator. XD

Might as well keep this going and not waste another thread. I have 3 things left to do before I can start adding in lines and sparring with a purpose. Feel free to contribute to any of these if you want to/feel you can... In no order of importance.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
1)Queues.
I am considering having queues to scan through my table of affs that I have, compare them to a static phpTable of affs based on their cure (herb_affs, salve_affs, purgative_affs etc etc) to determine priority, and heal as needed. My current ideal looks something like this:

That was a snippit shown to me by Zarquan, and I modified it to fit my system variables and such, this is my current idea for an able_eat function:

I have not tested any of this yet (since I am still looking up when I want to fire the curing aliases (I'm thinking firing them all on each prompt, or putting all the healing functions into one superfunction called Cure() that runs the other curing checks on a prompt... or some such). Basically the function able_eat is supposed to return that I can not eat if the affs or no balance conditions are met, and return that I can eat if the opposite is true. I have a similar queue and check function for smoking/eating/applying and I will be making one if I find something else, like maybe one for trueheal or something.

These are the format of the static tables I mentioned above:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

2) Autosipper
My autosipper worked just fine when it was inside of a trigger box, when I moved it to the script and set it to trigger on an alias (when testing it) it gives errors about trying to compare a number to a string. I see where and why this is a problem, but it was not a problem before since the variable contained a value. It looks like this, currently.

I see why it is incorrect but not how I should go about remedying it. I do not understand, because it worked before when it was just the first 3 ifs.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

3)Random Programming Questions
These are just random questions I have that I have not found conclusive answers for when googling.

a) The more triggers trigger functions in the script to handle their data, the over all performance of the system should be smoother/faster, correct? Thus the more I let functions handle things internally, the more speed/resource efficient the script would be?

I have many things that are simply passed to a storage table, like defenses. Over time, as I add defenses for other classes, would it be more speed/resource efficient to just let the same one adddef function handle every line, as with addaff, or would it better in terms of efficiency to just let each trigger pass the value right to the table?

c) Addaff can both add and remove afflictions from the table; Is it more speed/resource efficient to let the one function handle both, or to have 2 functions to handle the adding and then the removing individually?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Thanks for everything, it is much appreciated and will be re payed in time.

I think this already works. But you should change you alias, so that is shows these kinds of values.
So the affs alias should probably look like:


Well, how I would do able_eat:


I am not sure what you are asking here. Putting multiple lines in the trigger declaration or in the methods that are called by the trigger does not really change anything. (As far as I know. No knowledge of mushclient, disclaimer)


I don't think it will matter, in speed. The main advantage in the use of an addaff method, instead of changing a table directly is that you can easily add additional checking or extra functionality later on.
Let's say, that at some point later on you want to check whether you actually entered the command to get the defense, or else assume it is an illusion. If you used adddef in every trigger then it would be a simple change to adddef. However if you changed the table in every trigger manually, then you would have to change every trigger and add the check there.


It doesn't matter for efficiency. However it will have an impact on readability.
When you use addaff("paralysis", nil) to remove the affliction, then addaff("paralysis") will also remove the affliction.
However, when such code is somewhere hidden between a lot of lines of code, it will not be easy to spot, that actually the affliction is removed:

Using an afflictions.remove("paralysis") is in my opinion far more readable, and it will make your software more reliable.
(Or at least change the name addaff to setaff )


PS. When I say, it doesn't matter for efficiency, I always mean that it will not be noticeable. Readability and understandability and reliability are far more important.

I totally replied to this once already...

I was saying like... The more I have triggers catch and do functions inside the script, the better off the system will be in the long run, right? The more that is handled with scriptside functions, the better?

Yeah, the only reason I said that they were the same was due to the context.

@Simimi:
Really, to help speed up the processing of your computer (it doesn't matter as much with faster computers), any script function should be contained in a script file. The only real script calling triggers should be doing is to pass necessary arguments to functions. It speeds up the process because when everything is contained in a script file, it is compiled once. But, each time the trigger fires, it has to recompile.

Anyways, that's how I do it. I save as much processor speed as I can by doing everything in a file. The only real programming I have in triggers is mainly exceptions, such as how to handle salve balance when apply regeneration.

I get an error:

When I use the above... do I need a special symbol at the end of the first if line to tell Lua the code continues to the next line?

I have tried the code as shown, and it works for me (at least when I also created the bals and affs tables).
I am not sure why it doesn't work for you.
I don't need any special symbols. However, you might want try to remove all the comments or just putting all the conditions on one line.

Are you sure the problem is caused by this code, and not by the place where it is, in the script file. Maybe there is something wrong just before line 210...

I got an error, then I recompiled the script and loaded it in MUSH and it was fine... so it works wonderfully, I just need to test the actual cureing loops and such once I get those finished to see if it will work.

Why is it the autosipper is not wanting to work? It worked as a trigger SEND: but not as a script? It says I am trying to compare a number to a string, but the value of said string is a number...
EDIT: Well, I added quotes to the variables so now it looks like this;


And now I am returned this error from MUSH when I try to run it via an alias;

But the string value is a number... Back to the Drawing Board!

Try this:

So you mean like; ?

Yes, that should do it.

EDIT: Just tested myself, so turns out it should actually be like this:

Well... I got it to work, except that it CHUGS vials... I chugged through 23 vials before I noticed it was doing it (was coding the system in anothr widow >_<)

I tried to stop it with;


EDIT1:But no... it still chugs.

EDIT2: and now it has stopped drinking all together... hrm.

You need to set bals.potion to false (or some intermediate value) as soon as you send the command to do the drinking. That's how you keep it from looping. If you want for the trigger to set the flag, you could loop a few times and oversip.

Well the drink lines trigger it to false, but now it won't sip at all...


I tried it with a nil value, and if equals false. I also tied having the if true line be an elseif and nothing. Before it would sip, now it will not... and I changed nothing.