[Not a bug] The ?: operator

[Nanami]

Okay this isn't a bug, but I thought I'd get Randy's attention easier this way. =P

ACS doesn't support the ?: operator, unless I'm using it wrong:

Code: Select all

(laps == 1)?
     HudmessageBold(s:"1 lap to win.";2,1,9,0.5,0.5,1.0):
     HudmessageBold(d:laps,s:" laps to win.";2,1,9,0.5,0.5,1.0);

This is probably nothing anyone but me cares about, and I've no idea how easy/hard this would be to add. Just thought I'd bring it up. Cheers.

[Eevee]

usually ?: is used as part of an expression, not just as a lazy way to write an if o.o but I wouldn't be surprised if it's not supported...

[HotWax]

She's not using it in the manner you describe.

If laps == 1, the first Hudmessage will be called. Otherwise, the second is called. This is the intended usage.

It's actually more typical to use it in an assignment clause though, like this:

x = (laps == 1) ? 7 : 3

[Cyb]

acs doesn't support ?:

for the love of god just use a freaking if clause

?: only exists in C because the original intents for the language was to be for low-level systems programming without having to use ASM or machine language. ?: is faster than if() (to the best of my knowledge), and speed it often an issue with C. It's hardly worth having in ACS because a) it hurts readabilty and b) ACS is interpreted and thus slow by definition :P

[randi]

Everything you can do with ?:, you can do with if/else. If the ACC parser was automatically generated from a formal grammar, I would have added ?: long ago since it would have been an easy addition.

But it's not, and this doesn't qualify as important enough for me to fit a trinary operator into its hand-coded parser.

[Graf Zahl]

Everything you can do with ?:, you can do with if/else. If the ACC parser was automatically generated from a formal grammar, I would have added ?: long ago since it would have been an easy addition.

But it's not, and this doesn't qualify as important enough for me to fit a trinary operator into its hand-coded parser.

Fully understandable. I tried to mess with the parser once and I have to confirm that it's no fun to do so.