On 5 June 2010 12:13, James Paige <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 12:02:03PM +1200, Ralph Versteegen wrote: >> On 5 June 2010 08:11, James Paige <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > /script/gameover_script >> > /script/loadgame_script >> > >> > These are both ints. They store the id number of those script triggers. >> > What would be the consequence of storing the names of the scripts >> > instead? >> >> A plottrigger already encodes the name of the script, not its id >> number. But because it's possible for these to be set by a script to a >> script id number (which won't correspond to a plottrigger if the >> script isn't a plotscript), storing the name of the script would >> probably be better. IIRC, the plottrigger also becomes useless if the >> name of the script changes (other than indicating in Custom that the >> script has gone missing), so trigger ID and name should be perfectly >> equivalent ways to store a script handle. >> > > So if I changed this to store a string, that would be a redundant, and > wouldn't provide any actual benefit? > > ... or would it only be a benefit for old-style scripts and no-change > for new-style scripts?
It would be a benefit for cases where the scripts have been set (to a script ID) with the setgameover/loadgame commands. Maybe it would be bad to store the name for manually numbered scripts, because that allows you to change the name at will. > --- > James > _______________________________________________ > Ohrrpgce mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org > _______________________________________________ Ohrrpgce mailing list [email protected] http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
