• Create Account

Posted 06 January 2014 - 09:09 PM

EDIT: Ahh, sorry. I just saw that you fixed exactly that issue lately.

(Related thread: http://www.gamedev.net/topic/650055-problem-with-array-of-handles/ )

That's what I get for not using the very latest revision. Cheers.

---

Hey,

I'm currently using AngelScript for a little game project and recently noticed a shortcoming in the ScriptArray Addon related to this topic:

I'm using an array of handles defined like so:
array<GameObject@> currentGroup;

Unfortunately, the 'find' method does not work on the array,

unless an equal-comparison operator is defined for the GameObject type.

int pos = currentGroup.find(@character);


I don't define any such operator, because I want to compare the object handles only by their address.

The expression (@character1 == @character2) works perfectly well, only the array-type does not support it.

It seems to me that the CScriptArray::Precache method must be changed to make that possible.

It's probably a small fix. But unfortunately, I don't know enough about AngelScripts internals to do it myself.

Any chance to see this fixed in the next revision?

Thank you.

Posted 06 January 2014 - 09:04 PM

Hey,

I'm currently using AngelScript for a little game project and recently noticed a shortcoming in the ScriptArray Addon related to this topic:

I'm using an array of handles defined like so:
array<GameObject@> currentGroup;

Unfortunately, the 'find' method does not work on the array,

unless an equal-comparison operator is defined for the GameObject type.

int pos = currentGroup.find(@character);


I don't define any such operator, because I want to compare the object handles only by their address.

The expression (@character1 == @character2) works perfectly well, only the array-type does not support it.

It seems to me that the CScriptArray::Precache method must be changed to make that possible.

It's probably a small fix. But unfortunately, I don't know enough about AngelScripts internals to do it myself.

Any chance to see this fixed in the next revision?

Thank you.

PARTNERS