Discontinuing a verb when a proc returns false in Developer Help

ID:272720
 
Dec 26 2008, 2:35 pm
I want to use a proc as a "check", if you will, so that if it returns false, a verb will discontinue with the rest of its coding, much like a return.
#1 Dec 26 2008, 2:42 pm
Simple..

proc/Check()
   if(prob(60)) return TRUE
   // procs return false by default

mob/verb/Doodly_doodly_doo() // <_<
   world << "Will it be possible ? Will the world be saved from total domination ?!"
   if(!Check()) return
   world << "Success!"


You just need to check if the value the proc returns is true or false.
#2 Dec 26 2008, 2:52 pm
In response to Andre-g1 (#1)
I figured as much. Now for the other issue that made me unsure...

world
    mob = /mob/Player

mob/Player/var
    tmp/isAway = FALSE

mob/proc/failCheck()
    if(src.isAway)
        return 0

mob/verb
    Test()
        if(failCheck()) return
        usr<<"This is not supposed to be displayed"


General Procs.dm:29:error:src.isAway:undefined var

I know it has to do with the fact that I made the players' typepath to /mob/Player, but I don't know how to make it so the procs and verbs read it like that too.
#3 Dec 26 2008, 2:57 pm
In response to Mizukouken Ketsu (#2)
-First change your failCheck() proc, so it's under mob/Player.

--Secondly, reading my post would be nice. A proc returns false by default, so why'd you make it return 0 ? 0 is considered a FALSE value. Also, if you're returning FALSE values, why are you checking if the return value of the proc is true ? Makes no sense at all.

Afterwards, since you're checking the src in the failCheck() you need to pass the mob onto the proc. So, if(failCheck()) should actually be if(!usr.failCheck()).
#4 Dec 26 2008, 3:05 pm
In response to Andre-g1 (#3)
 
mob/Stuff/verb
    Test()
        if(!failCheck()) return


Stuff.dm:20:error:failCheck:undefined proc
#5 Dec 26 2008, 3:07 pm
In response to Mizukouken Ketsu (#4)
Read the bottom part of my post...
#6 Dec 26 2008, 4:24 pm (Edited on Dec 26 2008, 4:34 pm)
In response to Andre-g1 (#5)
Why do people like to assume I "didn't read all of my post". I did. Still didn't work. Said same exact thing. Help now, please?

EDIT
Nevermind, I figured it out.
#7 Dec 26 2008, 4:58 pm
In response to Mizukouken Ketsu (#6)
Mizukouken Ketsu wrote:
Why do people like to assume I "didn't read all of my post".

Because you didn't use the way I told you to. I just tested with your snippet and it worked fine the way I told you.
#8 Dec 26 2008, 5:32 pm
In response to Andre-g1 (#7)
Well it didn't work for me, sorry. However, I did find a way for it to work. Thanks anyways.
#9 Dec 26 2008, 6:14 pm
In response to Andre-g1 (#3)
Andre-g1 wrote:
--Secondly, reading my post would be nice. A proc returns false by default, so why'd you make it return 0 ? 0 is considered a FALSE value. Also, if you're returning FALSE values, why are you checking if the return value of the proc is true ? Makes no sense at all.

It's done often to indicate, explicitly, that the proc needs to return false. This is contrasting using return simply to indicate the proc is halting.