Sure! I suppose I just want (wanted, now; I will inevitably change it now to
something else) to
keep the switch because that's what it came with.
Here's what the switch does:
switch(ev->action)
{
case ACTION_PRINT:
if((!ev->args[0]) || (!ev->argv[0])) {
kill_event
}
send_to_char(ev->args[0], ev->argv[0]);
break;
case ACTION_FUNCTION:
if(!ev->args[0])
{
kill_event
}
do_function(ev->argv[0], ev->do_fun,
ev->args[0]);
break;
case ACTION_WAIT:
if(!ev->argv[0]) {
kill_event
}
WAIT_STATE((CHAR_DATA *)ev->argv[0],
PULSE_PER_SECOND*ev->argi[0]);
break;
case ACTION_ACT:
if(!ev->args[0] || !ev->argv[0]) {
kill_event
}
act(ev->args[0], ev->argv[0], ev->argv[1],
ev->argv[2],ev->argi[0]);
break;
case ACTION_KILLMENU: (my own custom action for menus)
if(!ev->argv[0] || !ev->argv[1])
{
kill_event
break;
}
CHAR_DATA *ch = (CHAR_DATA *)ev->argv[0];
MENU_DATA *menu = (MENU_DATA *)ev->argv[1];
ch_printf(ch, "Killing menu %s--menu
expired.\n\r", menu->name);
menu_from_char(ch, menu);
break;
}
What I might end up doing is replacing the above with, in conjunction with an
updated structure:
struct event_action_type
{
char *name;
sh_int *pea; //PEA!! Pointer-to-Event-Action [number]
<some function pointer>
};
and then:
const struct event_action_type event_action_table[] =
{
{"print", &ea_print, event_print},
{"wait", &ea_wait, event_wait},
{"act", &ea_act, event_act},
{"function", &ea_function, event_function},
{"kill_menu", &ea_killmenu, event_killmenu},
{"NULL", NULL}
};
And then simply dispatch the function for the event:
<however this is done>
Actually, I have no idea how this is done, come to think of it. Would I do a
"void *fun"; in
the struct declaration, do "&event_print" in the table, and then to dispatch
the function, do
"*event_action_table[ev->action].fun;" ?
-- Jeremy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chad Simmons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jeremy Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: More describable event actions
>
> --- Jeremy Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > I decided to move the actions into a table that looks like (structure and
> > table):
> > struct event_action_type
> > {
> > char *name;
> > sh_int *pea; //Pointer-to-Event-Action [number]
> > };
> >
> > const struct event_action_type event_action_table[] =
> > {
> > {"print", &ea_print},
> > {"wait", &ea_wait},
> > {"act", &ea_act},
> > {"function", &ea_function},
> > {"kill_menu", &ea_killmenu},
> > {"NULL", NULL}
> > };
>
>
> Looks good so far....
>
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >
> > In the meantime, I have run into a serious problem. In event_update, a
> > switch statement is used
> > to see what the ev->action is. My cases are ea_print, ea_wait, etc, but I
> > cannot use them as
> > case labels. Eg.:
> >
> > switch (ev->action)
> > case ea_print:
> >
> > This obviously won't work.
> [SNIP]
>
> Hrm.. Just curious, but what do you need this switch statement for?? I
> shouldn't think you need it, as you already have a function pointer for what
> you want the event to do, so just call the event's function and move on to the
> next one..
>
> If you can show what you're trying to do in this switch, I may be able to
> suggest a better design..
>
> ~Kender
>
> =====
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version 3.1
> GCS/L/C/O d-(+) s++: a-- C+++$>++++ UBLS++++$
> P+++(--)$ L+++>++++ E--- W+>++$ N !o K? w(--) !O
> M- !V PS+ PE(++) Y+ PGP->+ t+ 5 X+() R(+) tv+@
> b++(+++) !DI+++ D G(-) e>+++$ h---() r+++ y+++
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
