[ddhoward]

Originally Posted by BAILOPAN FYI: Macro-functions are slated for removal.

ShiftArray and CircleIndex would be better off as legit functions. Makes them more readable, too.

[fakuivan]

PHP Code:

#include <sourcemod>

#pragma semicolon 1
#pragma newdecls required
#define INVERSE(%1,%2)    %1[(sizeof(%1) - 1) - %2]    /** INVERSE(array, element) **/

public Plugin myinfo = {
    name        = "",
    author      = "",
    description = "",
    version     = "0.0.0",
    url         = ""
};

public void OnPluginStart()
{
    int i_array[] = {1, 2, 3, 4};
    InverseAccess(i_array, sizeof(i_array), 3); //should return 1
    INVERSE(i_array, 3); //should return 1
}

any InverseAccess(any[] v_array, int i_size, int i_element)    //if you like runtime overhead
{
    return v_array[i_size -1 - i_element];
} 


It compiles on spider

[ddhoward]

It's not so much "liking runtime overhead" as much as it is "liking my code being compilable even in future versions of Sourcemod"

[Potato Uno]

I'd take runtime overhead as opposed to shitty macros (macro beyond simple value insertion).

Also more readable than macros.

[klippy]

Originally Posted by Potato Uno I'd take runtime overhead as opposed to shitty macros (macro beyond simple value insertion). Also more readable than macros.

You should use constants even for definitions ("simple value insertions"), they are type safe. There's almost no reason for using macros.

[Potato Uno]

That's true, and I think it might even be faster if done that way.

[headline]

In what situation would you rotate an array as opposed to just looping it backwards?

[ddhoward]

Originally Posted by Headline In what situation would you rotate an array as opposed to just looping it backwards?

They produce different results.

Original array contents:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Effective contents when looped backwards:
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Contents after being rotated forward by 1 :
9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Contents after being rotated forward by 2 :
8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Contents after being rotated backwards by 1:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

Contents after being rotated backwards by 2:
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

Etc.

[headline]

Originally Posted by ddhoward They produce different results. Original array contents: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Effective contents when looped backwards: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Contents after being rotated forward by 1 : 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Contents after being rotated forward by 2 : 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Contents after being rotated backwards by 1: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Contents after being rotated backwards by 2: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 Etc.

Oh, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification