Talk:Get version - Revision history

Icon315: Undo revision 9533 by Icon315 (Talk)Crap, missclick, sorry

2010-08-01T23:35:58Z

Undo revision 9533 by Icon315 (Talk)Crap, missclick, sorry

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:35, 1 August 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Since the function returns a string, and get_revision returns an int, it seems like any situation in which you'd like to check compatibility or anything else would be much safer to implement with get_revision. After all, there's no real guarantee that the current version format will be stuck to. (I guess nothing is written in stone, but at least it's fairly unlikely that a check versus an int would completely bork things.) I don't want to complain too much, as I've been wanting get_revision for so very long. But yeah... can't think of anything either. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 06:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)		Since the function returns a string, and get_revision returns an int, it seems like any situation in which you'd like to check compatibility or anything else would be much safer to implement with get_revision. After all, there's no real guarantee that the current version format will be stuck to. (I guess nothing is written in stone, but at least it's fairly unlikely that a check versus an int would completely bork things.) I don't want to complain too much, as I've been wanting get_revision for so very long. But yeah... can't think of anything either. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 06:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
			: What I'd want for this function to get any action would be a void header() or something that'd run before checking the rest of the script. Of course, this'd go along with having undefined functions return something specific and a way to capture that, but meh. We'd probably also need some way to jump around a script (to skip defining some functions that are either already defined or implemented into ASH). Wayyyy too many changes to ASH needed for this to be of much use, I'm afraid. And the benefit wouldn't really be worth it, even. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
			: Regarding the most recent code sample: the scriptwriter would have to be '''absolutely sure''' to use "item_name".to_item(), as opposed to $item[item_name], as the latter would result in <span style="color:red">Bad item value: "item_name" ()</span>. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Icon315: Reverted edits by Heeheehee (Talk) to last revision by StDoodle

2010-08-01T23:34:54Z

Reverted edits by Heeheehee (Talk) to last revision by StDoodle

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:34, 1 August 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Since the function returns a string, and get_revision returns an int, it seems like any situation in which you'd like to check compatibility or anything else would be much safer to implement with get_revision. After all, there's no real guarantee that the current version format will be stuck to. (I guess nothing is written in stone, but at least it's fairly unlikely that a check versus an int would completely bork things.) I don't want to complain too much, as I've been wanting get_revision for so very long. But yeah... can't think of anything either. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 06:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)		Since the function returns a string, and get_revision returns an int, it seems like any situation in which you'd like to check compatibility or anything else would be much safer to implement with get_revision. After all, there's no real guarantee that the current version format will be stuck to. (I guess nothing is written in stone, but at least it's fairly unlikely that a check versus an int would completely bork things.) I don't want to complain too much, as I've been wanting get_revision for so very long. But yeah... can't think of anything either. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 06:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
	: What I'd want for this function to get any action would be a void header() or something that'd run before checking the rest of the script. Of course, this'd go along with having undefined functions return something specific and a way to capture that, but meh. We'd probably also need some way to jump around a script (to skip defining some functions that are either already defined or implemented into ASH). Wayyyy too many changes to ASH needed for this to be of much use, I'm afraid. And the benefit wouldn't really be worth it, even. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
	: Regarding the most recent code sample: the scriptwriter would have to be '''absolutely sure''' to use "item_name".to_item(), as opposed to $item[item_name], as the latter would result in <span style="color:red">Bad item value: "item_name" ()</span>. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Heeheehee: Erm, yeah. Re: code sample

2010-07-30T15:14:40Z

Erm, yeah. Re: code sample

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:14, 30 July 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Since the function returns a string, and get_revision returns an int, it seems like any situation in which you'd like to check compatibility or anything else would be much safer to implement with get_revision. After all, there's no real guarantee that the current version format will be stuck to. (I guess nothing is written in stone, but at least it's fairly unlikely that a check versus an int would completely bork things.) I don't want to complain too much, as I've been wanting get_revision for so very long. But yeah... can't think of anything either. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 06:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)		Since the function returns a string, and get_revision returns an int, it seems like any situation in which you'd like to check compatibility or anything else would be much safer to implement with get_revision. After all, there's no real guarantee that the current version format will be stuck to. (I guess nothing is written in stone, but at least it's fairly unlikely that a check versus an int would completely bork things.) I don't want to complain too much, as I've been wanting get_revision for so very long. But yeah... can't think of anything either. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 06:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
	: What I'd want for this function to get any action would be a void header() or something that'd run before checking the rest of the script. Of course, this'd go along with having undefined functions return something specific and a way to capture that, but meh. We'd probably also need some way to jump around a script (to skip defining some functions that are either already defined or implemented into ASH). Wayyyy too many changes to ASH needed for this to be of much use, I'm afraid. And the benefit wouldn't really be worth it, even. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)		: What I'd want for this function to get any action would be a void header() or something that'd run before checking the rest of the script. Of course, this'd go along with having undefined functions return something specific and a way to capture that, but meh. We'd probably also need some way to jump around a script (to skip defining some functions that are either already defined or implemented into ASH). Wayyyy too many changes to ASH needed for this to be of much use, I'm afraid. And the benefit wouldn't really be worth it, even. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
	: Regarding the most recent code sample: the scriptwriter would have to be '''absolutely sure''' to use "item_name".to_item(), as opposed to $item[item_name], as the latter would result in <span style="color:red">Bad item value: "~~ahdofuih~~" ()</span>. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)		: Regarding the most recent code sample: the scriptwriter would have to be '''absolutely sure''' to use "item_name".to_item(), as opposed to $item[item_name], as the latter would result in <span style="color:red">Bad item value: "item_name" ()</span>. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Heeheehee at 15:14, 30 July 2010

2010-07-30T15:14:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:14, 30 July 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Since the function returns a string, and get_revision returns an int, it seems like any situation in which you'd like to check compatibility or anything else would be much safer to implement with get_revision. After all, there's no real guarantee that the current version format will be stuck to. (I guess nothing is written in stone, but at least it's fairly unlikely that a check versus an int would completely bork things.) I don't want to complain too much, as I've been wanting get_revision for so very long. But yeah... can't think of anything either. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 06:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)		Since the function returns a string, and get_revision returns an int, it seems like any situation in which you'd like to check compatibility or anything else would be much safer to implement with get_revision. After all, there's no real guarantee that the current version format will be stuck to. (I guess nothing is written in stone, but at least it's fairly unlikely that a check versus an int would completely bork things.) I don't want to complain too much, as I've been wanting get_revision for so very long. But yeah... can't think of anything either. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 06:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
	: What I'd want for this function to get any action would be a void header() or something that'd run before checking the rest of the script. Of course, this'd go along with having undefined functions return something specific and a way to capture that, but meh. We'd probably also need some way to jump around a script (to skip defining some functions that are either already defined or implemented into ASH). Wayyyy too many changes to ASH needed for this to be of much use, I'm afraid. And the benefit wouldn't really be worth it, even. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)		: What I'd want for this function to get any action would be a void header() or something that'd run before checking the rest of the script. Of course, this'd go along with having undefined functions return something specific and a way to capture that, but meh. We'd probably also need some way to jump around a script (to skip defining some functions that are either already defined or implemented into ASH). Wayyyy too many changes to ASH needed for this to be of much use, I'm afraid. And the benefit wouldn't really be worth it, even. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
			: Regarding the most recent code sample: the scriptwriter would have to be '''absolutely sure''' to use "item_name".to_item(), as opposed to $item[item_name], as the latter would result in <span style="color:red">Bad item value: "ahdofuih" ()</span>. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Heeheehee at 15:01, 30 July 2010

2010-07-30T15:01:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:01, 30 July 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Since the function returns a string, and get_revision returns an int, it seems like any situation in which you'd like to check compatibility or anything else would be much safer to implement with get_revision. After all, there's no real guarantee that the current version format will be stuck to. (I guess nothing is written in stone, but at least it's fairly unlikely that a check versus an int would completely bork things.) I don't want to complain too much, as I've been wanting get_revision for so very long. But yeah... can't think of anything either. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 06:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)		Since the function returns a string, and get_revision returns an int, it seems like any situation in which you'd like to check compatibility or anything else would be much safer to implement with get_revision. After all, there's no real guarantee that the current version format will be stuck to. (I guess nothing is written in stone, but at least it's fairly unlikely that a check versus an int would completely bork things.) I don't want to complain too much, as I've been wanting get_revision for so very long. But yeah... can't think of anything either. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 06:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
			: What I'd want for this function to get any action would be a void header() or something that'd run before checking the rest of the script. Of course, this'd go along with having undefined functions return something specific and a way to capture that, but meh. We'd probably also need some way to jump around a script (to skip defining some functions that are either already defined or implemented into ASH). Wayyyy too many changes to ASH needed for this to be of much use, I'm afraid. And the benefit wouldn't really be worth it, even. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

StDoodle at 06:02, 30 July 2010

2010-07-30T06:02:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:02, 30 July 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Yeah i know, i couldn't think of anything else, i can't think of any other reason for this function--[[User:Icon315\|Icon315]] 21:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)		Yeah i know, i couldn't think of anything else, i can't think of any other reason for this function--[[User:Icon315\|Icon315]] 21:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

			Since the function returns a string, and get_revision returns an int, it seems like any situation in which you'd like to check compatibility or anything else would be much safer to implement with get_revision. After all, there's no real guarantee that the current version format will be stuck to. (I guess nothing is written in stone, but at least it's fairly unlikely that a check versus an int would completely bork things.) I don't want to complain too much, as I've been wanting get_revision for so very long. But yeah... can't think of anything either. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 06:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Icon315 at 21:51, 29 July 2010

2010-07-29T21:51:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:51, 29 July 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The code sample on this page should be redone, as that functionality is already built into KoLmafia. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 16:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)		The code sample on this page should be redone, as that functionality is already built into KoLmafia. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 16:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

			Yeah i know, i couldn't think of anything else, i can't think of any other reason for this function--[[User:Icon315\|Icon315]] 21:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

StDoodle: Created page with 'The code sample on this page should be redone, as that functionality is already built into KoLmafia. --~~~~'

2010-07-29T16:52:35Z

Created page with 'The code sample on this page should be redone, as that functionality is already built into KoLmafia. --~~~~'

New page

The code sample on this page should be redone, as that functionality is already built into KoLmafia. --[[User:StDoodle|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 16:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:14, 30 July 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Since the function returns a string, and get_revision returns an int, it seems like any situation in which you'd like to check compatibility or anything else would be much safer to implement with get_revision. After all, there's no real guarantee that the current version format will be stuck to. (I guess nothing is written in stone, but at least it's fairly unlikely that a check versus an int would completely bork things.) I don't want to complain too much, as I've been wanting get_revision for so very long. But yeah... can't think of anything either. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 06:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)		Since the function returns a string, and get_revision returns an int, it seems like any situation in which you'd like to check compatibility or anything else would be much safer to implement with get_revision. After all, there's no real guarantee that the current version format will be stuck to. (I guess nothing is written in stone, but at least it's fairly unlikely that a check versus an int would completely bork things.) I don't want to complain too much, as I've been wanting get_revision for so very long. But yeah... can't think of anything either. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 06:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
	: What I'd want for this function to get any action would be a void header() or something that'd run before checking the rest of the script. Of course, this'd go along with having undefined functions return something specific and a way to capture that, but meh. We'd probably also need some way to jump around a script (to skip defining some functions that are either already defined or implemented into ASH). Wayyyy too many changes to ASH needed for this to be of much use, I'm afraid. And the benefit wouldn't really be worth it, even. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)		: What I'd want for this function to get any action would be a void header() or something that'd run before checking the rest of the script. Of course, this'd go along with having undefined functions return something specific and a way to capture that, but meh. We'd probably also need some way to jump around a script (to skip defining some functions that are either already defined or implemented into ASH). Wayyyy too many changes to ASH needed for this to be of much use, I'm afraid. And the benefit wouldn't really be worth it, even. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
	: Regarding the most recent code sample: the scriptwriter would have to be '''absolutely sure''' to use "item_name".to_item(), as opposed to $item[item_name], as the latter would result in <span style="color:red">Bad item value: "~~ahdofuih~~" ()</span>. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)		: Regarding the most recent code sample: the scriptwriter would have to be '''absolutely sure''' to use "item_name".to_item(), as opposed to $item[item_name], as the latter would result in <span style="color:red">Bad item value: "item_name" ()</span>. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:14, 30 July 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Since the function returns a string, and get_revision returns an int, it seems like any situation in which you'd like to check compatibility or anything else would be much safer to implement with get_revision. After all, there's no real guarantee that the current version format will be stuck to. (I guess nothing is written in stone, but at least it's fairly unlikely that a check versus an int would completely bork things.) I don't want to complain too much, as I've been wanting get_revision for so very long. But yeah... can't think of anything either. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 06:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)		Since the function returns a string, and get_revision returns an int, it seems like any situation in which you'd like to check compatibility or anything else would be much safer to implement with get_revision. After all, there's no real guarantee that the current version format will be stuck to. (I guess nothing is written in stone, but at least it's fairly unlikely that a check versus an int would completely bork things.) I don't want to complain too much, as I've been wanting get_revision for so very long. But yeah... can't think of anything either. --[[User:StDoodle\|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 06:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
	: What I'd want for this function to get any action would be a void header() or something that'd run before checking the rest of the script. Of course, this'd go along with having undefined functions return something specific and a way to capture that, but meh. We'd probably also need some way to jump around a script (to skip defining some functions that are either already defined or implemented into ASH). Wayyyy too many changes to ASH needed for this to be of much use, I'm afraid. And the benefit wouldn't really be worth it, even. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)		: What I'd want for this function to get any action would be a void header() or something that'd run before checking the rest of the script. Of course, this'd go along with having undefined functions return something specific and a way to capture that, but meh. We'd probably also need some way to jump around a script (to skip defining some functions that are either already defined or implemented into ASH). Wayyyy too many changes to ASH needed for this to be of much use, I'm afraid. And the benefit wouldn't really be worth it, even. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
			: Regarding the most recent code sample: the scriptwriter would have to be '''absolutely sure''' to use "item_name".to_item(), as opposed to $item[item_name], as the latter would result in <span style="color:red">Bad item value: "ahdofuih" ()</span>. --[[User:Heeheehee\|Heeheehee]] 15:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)