21 Aug, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 41st comment:
Votes: 0
From the search output you posted both the functions are declared using a macro DECLARE_DO_FUN. I'm not familiar with smaugwiz but as both functions have different parameters in their definitions, it is unlikely that this macro is declaring them both correctly.
21 Aug, 2009, Lazerous wrote in the 42nd comment:
Votes: 0
So…your sugestions would be..? And what would you sugest to use to call do_quit from do_quit2 ?
21 Aug, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 43rd comment:
Votes: 0
If you're declaring them both with DECLARE_DO_FUN then they both should take the same arguments, which I would guess are a pointer to a CCharacter data structure and a pointer to a string. In that case just pass the same arguments to do_quit from do_quit2, ch and argument. I don't know about the rest of your code, but the declarations and definitions you posted don't match and should be fixed.

Specifically this:
void do_quit (CDescriptor *d, CCharacter *ch)

Should probably be this:
void do_quit (CCharacter *ch, char *argument)


And do_quit2 should be the same. Unless of course you've purposefully changed the do_quit function to take a CDescriptor instead, in which case you should change the declaration to match.
22 Aug, 2009, Lazerous wrote in the 44th comment:
Votes: 0
How would I change that declaration? all them in that file are the exact same, no others to go off for ideas on syntax.
I will look at your other sugestions shortly..

and see no sugestion for how to call do_quit from within do_quit2
22 Aug, 2009, Lazerous wrote in the 45th comment:
Votes: 0
Orrin, do_quit needs the descriptor so it can be passed a new con state.

d->m_Connected = CON_MENU2;
22 Aug, 2009, Rendelven wrote in the 46th comment:
Votes: 0
The character should have a pointer to the descriptor that belongs to it (ch->desc for example).

As Orrin said, they should both take the same arguments since they are both declared with DECLARE_DO_FUN.
22 Aug, 2009, Lazerous wrote in the 47th comment:
Votes: 0
What has them both being declared with: declare_do_fun have to do with that? all functions that using that, use the exact same declaration.

You guys are confusing the heck out of me
22 Aug, 2009, Lazerous wrote in the 48th comment:
Votes: 0
I mean seriously making a stupid logout menu should not be this dang hard, this is just rediculous
23 Aug, 2009, Lazerous wrote in the 49th comment:
Votes: 0
Example of the declares in smaug.h

// Command functions.
// Defined in act_*.c (mostly).
DECLARE_DO_FUN(skill_notfound);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_aassign);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_acid_weapon);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_advance);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_affected);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_afk);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_aid);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_allow);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_ansi);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_answer);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_apply);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_appraise);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_apset);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_areas);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_aset);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_ask);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_astat);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_at);
DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_atmob);


They all are the same….
23 Aug, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 50th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm going to apologise ahead of time if you think I'm being patronising, and it may be that we're just miscommunicating here, but it looks like you don't understand some basic concepts and if that's the case it's going to be hard for us to help you figure this out.

Quote
What has them both being declared with: declare_do_fun have to do with that? all functions that using that, use the exact same declaration.

The declare_do_fun is a macro that sets up a declaration for the function. The macro itself is just a shorthand way of writing it. When you declare a function you're telling the compiler what arguments and return types to expect when the function is used. If your function then doesn't match this declaration you will get errors.

From your post:
Quote
E:\BuiltByRustry\Current Game Code\ACT_COMM.CPP(1125):void do_quit (CDescriptor *d, CCharacter *ch)
E:\BuiltByRustry\Current Game Code\SMAUG.H(1817):DECLARE_DO_FUN(do_quit);


From smaug.h:
Quote
#define DECLARE_DO_FUN(fun) DO_FUN fun
typedef void DO_FUN (CCharacter *ch, char *argument);


I've bolded the function arguments, and as you can see they are different. The argument types that you use in the do_quit function in your code should be the same as the ones in the declaration.
23 Aug, 2009, Lazerous wrote in the 51st comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Sorry but I am not able to provide individual support outside the forum. It's very clear from your posts that your knowledge of C/C++ is minimal, but it also seems like you don't want to admit it. It's ok if you don't understand about function declarations and definitions, everyone has to start somewhere, but it's no good asking people to write code for you when you don't have a grasp of the basics yourself. I recommend you find a good tutorial on C/C++ and work through that first.


You know something guy you got alot of balls man, I said right off the hop I am not a pro at coding so don't you go off and say crap like that to me.
Here I am asking for assistance and you come across like this? Nice moderator you have here. Next time you decide to respond to someones request
for help why don't you next time read the whole post instead of making assumptions that make you out to be the a-hole you obviously are.
Thanks for nothing Orrin. Don't bother replying to my posts your remarks will be ignored.

This quote was taken from a mail message sent to me.
23 Aug, 2009, Lazerous wrote in the 52nd comment:
Votes: 0
Complete tool…
23 Aug, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 53rd comment:
Votes: 0
Lazerous, we've been trying to help you with this, but telling us you don't understand coding doesn't help US help YOU. If you recognize that your skills are lacking, the intelligent thing to do is to find one of the many C or C++ tutorials out there on the web, and study it. Taking the time and effort to learn the language you're trying to use, as well as the general concepts behind it, can only make life easier.

The "crap" Orrin sent you (that you quoted) is more than polite. It's a shame that you're frustrated, but that's not something anyone else can do anything about. If you aren't willing to learn, this is probably not the best endeavor for you to be undertaking.

This reminds me of tourists who visit countries where English is not the native tongue, and complain when nobody will "just speak English."

In any case, I wish you the best of luck.
23 Aug, 2009, Lazerous wrote in the 54th comment:
Votes: 0
Gee and here I thought a forum use was to get help and promote self learning….
23 Aug, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 55th comment:
Votes: 0
Lazerous said:
Gee and here I thought a forum use was to get help and promote self learning….


http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions...
23 Aug, 2009, Lazerous wrote in the 56th comment:
Votes: 0
Unless you have something reguarding the topic to say, then please do not bother posting.

If you just want to scribble in the forum, go elsewhere.
23 Aug, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 57th comment:
Votes: 0
Lazerous said:
Gee and here I thought a forum use was to get help and promote self learning….


It is. But you have to be willing to listen to what others say.
23 Aug, 2009, Dean wrote in the 58th comment:
Votes: 0
You need to calm down Lazerous, take a few deep breaths. People are trying to help you (and have been for several pages now), short of someone writing the code for you, it would be a good move to take on board the advice people have given you (Like Quix's post a few posts back). Doing so will make things easier on you and the people trying to help you in the long run.
23 Aug, 2009, Lazerous wrote in the 59th comment:
Votes: 0
Listen man, I am perfectly calm, you folks making assumptions not me.

As for listening to what others say, if you take the time to read all I have said and done you would notice,
that I had replied to and taken advice from the people who actually gave something useful.

You all want to gather around and hold hands and sing your self praises you go right ahead and do that, but
for it to take 4 pages and soon 5 to answer this is a joke. So unless like I said, you have some code to add
to this post, go take a chill pill your self and find another post to respond to to boost your posting numbers.
23 Aug, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 60th comment:
Votes: 0
Lazerous, my PM was a reply to your email request that I help you with the code privately. It's not my intention to embarass or insult you and that is why my comments to you were made in PM.

I think that pointing out a basic error that would prevent your code from compiling qualifies as useful advice, but if you disagree then feel free to ignore me. Good luck with your project.
40.0/64