like for a procedure
do <#string#>
will look for a #string# procedure instead of whats inside the string.

Similarly and this would be useful in my battle system
set string <blah;##string1#weapon#>
Quest will read this as ''string1#weapon#

are there any brackets or similar you can use to say
set string <blah;#(#string1#)weapon#> to show which #'s go with which?

quote:

---

set string <blah;##string1#weapon#>

---

I would have thought you'd have:
set <blah;##string1##weapon##>
Let's put brackets in to understand it better:

set <blah;#(#string1#)(#weapon#)#>
so the string variable and weapon variable are both INSIDE a varible call thingy!

Think of it in this order:
1. The inside of the variable..... What do you want the INSIDE to be? Don't go putting #'s around the variable you want BEFORE you know what you want!
2. Now put the #'s around it and vwah-la!

As for the do <#string#>, why would you want to name a procedure #string#??
I've tried using this before and it wouldn't call the procedure that was inside the string...... I tried it in that fighting game I made, but it didn't work!

Wiv wot u sed ##string1##weapon## quest will see it as ''string1''weapon''!

and wiv this
set
<blah;#(#string1#)(#weapon#)#>
quest will c it as #(# string1 #)(# weapon #)i've tried it :(

C what i mean wiv them, each # will go wiv the # nearest to it and in the asl log window u get a lot of variable not defined!

I know what you want, you want a different procedure for each weapon don't you!
Well, I'd give each weapon a number in the properties (WEAP_NO=1, ect...) and check it after it is used! Then go to the array #weapon[WEAP_NO]# and run that procedure.... but then again, there isn't much point if this do <#variable#> doesn't work..... I'm going to do a quick test in a minute and I'll get back to you guys!

quote:

---

I think you're all bonkers. No programming language in the world offers the ability to run whatever procedure is named inside a string variable, and although Quest almost offers this kind of facility it would be immensely poor coding to do so.

---

Hear hear Alex! I shudder to imagine how evil to debug code written in a language that allowed that kind of construct would be... I forecast many many crashes and bugs if it were allowed. :-(

Surely what you need is to write a weapon procedure and pass the string containing the name of the weapon (or a numeric variable representing the weapon - say 4 = the sword, 3 = the mace etc.) to it so that the battle system you're using can work out the way to treat the weapon's effectiveness with if/then/else clauses. That makes a lot more sense to me.

I'm baffled as to why you'd want to do it any other way, just thinking about it makes my head hurt!

Why would it be evil to debug? You'd have a locked variable so that it ALWAYS did a procedure! If anything went wrong, it would only be through a mis-spelling. And this would be easier to find then with over 300 line's of IF codes! Don't also forget that you have to have { and }'s on seperate lines; which means a file with over 600 line's in it just to get some variety which could be done in about 6!!

I think he wanted some different procedure for different types of weapon. eg. spike, club, bow and arrow. This way, you perform something like:
msg <You push the spike through the monster's heart and impale him!>
======seperate!====
msg <You hold the club above your head and bring it down on his noggin!>
======seperate!====
msg <You fire the arrow into the angels heart and watch her as she sinks to the ground in pain!>

Now I'm using these as examples, but you could use these to have different procedure's run, when something is different in the game.

quote:

---

think he wanted some different procedure for different types of weapon.

---

Sorta, but what I wanted was more like your starting example

It would be used to give the game a variety of storylines. EG. You're in a room with 30 people in, you go over to one and the game has one storyline, but if you entered the same room and went over to a different person first, they would all end up talking differently and so the storyline would change AGAIN!

This way you could store the commands in a string, and build the string up one word at a time, like luridii was trying to do, but instead of it being a procedure name, it would be 'look sword' or some such command name.

The only problem i can think of with this is that because the actions you want must be written as commands, it would be possible for players to accidentally trigger them by typing in the wrong command.