Really quick question about oview

ID:179502
 
Dec 15 2001, 7:09 am
I just want to know, would this work?

oview(3,usr&src) << "Hi!"

Or should it be something like this?

oview(3,usr&&src) << "Hi!"

I want to send a message out to everyone in view except for usr and src.
Dec 15 2001, 7:25 am
Using oview automaticly unincludes the person on the tile that's used from:

view() -- Everyone within view including the tile used from.

oview() -- Everyone within view except the tile it's used from.
Dec 15 2001, 7:45 am
In response to Nadrew
So, 
oview(3,usr&src) << "Hi!"
would give a message to everyone 3 steps away from usr or src?
Dec 15 2001, 7:49 am
In response to WizDragon
Umm no, example:

mob/verb/Say(T as text)
    oview(4)<<"[usr] says: [T]"//Outputs T to anyone within 4 tiles of the user but not the user him/herself.
    usr<<"You said [T]"//Outputs to the user only


Get it?
Dec 15 2001, 8:38 am
WizDragon wrote:
I want to send a message out to everyone in view except for usr and src.

The & and && operators won't work for you here. & is bitwise AND, but does not mean the same as "this and that", and && is the AND operation for an if() or while() or something, and it means "if this and that are both true".

Since oview() returns a list, what you want to do is subtract from the list, like this:
(oview(3)-src) << "Hi!"

Now keep in mind oview() is from the perspective of usr unless you specify otherwise; hence usr isn't included in the list. If you want it to be within 3 units of src instead, use (oview(3,src)-usr).

Lummox JR
Dec 15 2001, 1:53 pm
In response to Nadrew
Nadrew wrote:
Using oview automaticly unincludes the person on the tile that's used from:

view() -- Everyone within view including the tile used from.

oview() -- Everyone within view except the tile it's used from.

This is not true. If two mobs stand on the same tile, oview(mob1) still includes mob2.
Dec 16 2001, 10:26 am
In response to Nadrew
Yes, thank you.
Dec 16 2001, 10:27 am
In response to Lummox JR
Thanks!
Dec 16 2001, 5:34 pm
In response to Skysaw
True. oview() == view() - src.
Dec 16 2001, 6:19 pm
In response to Lord of Water
Lord of Water wrote:
True. oview() == view() - src.

Heh.. That would actually return false in BYOND. Lists only evaluate as equivolent if they are the SAME list object, not just lists with identical elements in an identical order.

-AbyssDragon
Dec 16 2001, 7:04 pm
In response to AbyssDragon
AbyssDragon wrote:
Lord of Water wrote:
True. oview() == view() - src.

Heh.. That would actually return false in BYOND. Lists only evaluate as equivolent if they are the SAME list object, not just lists with identical elements in an identical order.

-AbyssDragon

So what you're saying is FALSE == (oview() == view() - src)

true?
Dec 16 2001, 7:06 pm
In response to Skysaw
Right. TRUE == (FALSE == (oview() == view() - src))

-AbyssDragon
Dec 16 2001, 7:40 pm
In response to AbyssDragon
I sense another infinite recursion post!
Dec 17 2001, 3:32 am
In response to Lord of Water
Lord of Water wrote:
True. oview() == view() - src.

False. oview() is the same as (view()-usr), unless you specify src as your object instead of usr.

Lummox JR
Dec 17 2001, 5:47 am
In response to Lummox JR
Lummox JR wrote:
Lord of Water wrote:
True. oview() == view() - src.

False. oview() is the same as (view()-usr), unless you specify src as your object instead of usr.

Lummox JR

Unless you put something in those parenthesis, you have specified src as the parameter to view()/oview().
Dec 17 2001, 6:02 am
In response to Skysaw
Skysaw wrote:
Unless you put something in those parenthesis, you have specified src as the parameter to view()/oview().

Nope; according to the reference, these default to usr, not src. It's sort of counterintuitive, though; one would expect src to be the default.

Lummox JR
Dec 17 2001, 6:23 am
In response to Lummox JR
Lummox JR wrote:
Skysaw wrote:
Unless you put something in those parenthesis, you have specified src as the parameter to view()/oview().

Nope; according to the reference, these default to usr, not src. It's sort of counterintuitive, though; one would expect src to be the default.

Lummox JR

Well I'll be damned... you're right! Seems pretty inconsistant with the rest of the language. It's a good thing I usually am explicit anyway for safety.