[Backstabnoob]

Should also be mentioned that you can add checks to states like this:

//state (condition) StateDefinition

public plugin_init( )
{
    get_mapname( g_MapName, charsmax( g_MapName ) )

    state ( equali( g_MapName, "de_dust2" ) ) AllowChange
}


public plugin_end( ) < AllowChange >
{
    server_cmd( "changelevel aim_awp" ) // this probably doesn't work but whatever
}

public plugin_end( ) < >
{
    log_amx( "map is not de_dust2, no action taken" )
}

[ConnorMcLeod]

Originally Posted by Backstabnoob Should also be mentioned that you can add checks to states like this:

Thanks.

[Arkshine]

OP should have given the description of the Pawn Guide, it may help :

state ( expression ) automaton :name Changes the current state in the specified automaton. The expression between parentheses is optional; if it is absent, the parentheses must be omitted as well. The name of the automaton is optional as well, when changing the state of the default, anonymous, automaton; if the automaton name is absent, the colon (“:”) must be omitted as well. Below are two examples of unconditional state changes. The first is for the default automaton: state handshake and the second for a specific automaton: state gps:handshake Often, whether or not a state changes depends on parameters of the event or the condition of the automaton as a whole. Since conditional state changes are so frequent, the condition may be in the state instruction itself. The condition follows the keyword state, between parentheses. The state will only change if the condition is logically “true”. The state instruction causes an implied call to the entry function ffor the indicated state —if such entry function exists.

[joaquimandrade]

Originally Posted by Seta00 Don't use this or Albernaz o Carniceiro Demoniaco will come to get you.

for those who dont know that alias of mine meant something like "Albernaz, the devilish butcher" (Albernaz is a kind of bizarre name for persons like Theodore)

Anyway everybody in the house, tell me honestly, am I a cool guy for posting this?

[DarkGod]

You're a cool guy for being cool

[joaquimandrade]

Originally Posted by DarkGod You're a cool guy for being cool

thanks

[ConnorMcLeod]

PHP Code:

public Function(  ) <>
{
    state Automaton1:StateEnabled
}

public Function(  ) <Automaton1:StateEnabled>
{
    state Automaton1:StateDisabled
}

public Function(  ) <Automaton1:StateDisabled>
{
    state Automaton1:StateEnabled
} 


Anyone knows how to get rid of the default fonction ?
I mean <Automaton1:StateDisabled> and <> states have the same code, so is there a wy to combinate them ? Or is there a way to put automaton 'Automaton1' in default state so state StateDisabled would become useless ?

( <> implementation is not required for anonymous automatons )

[Arkshine]

I believe it doesn't really make sense to explicit name for automaton in such simple model. Unless the code is driven with a [complex] bunch of events for a model which requires naming automaton (several automatons and several states for one automaton), anonymous automaton should be used.

[ConnorMcLeod]

I just need an answer on a question, usefullness of an example is not relevant.

[Arkshine]

1) The answer is already given in the post of the original question. Because it's non-anonymous, so, defining a name for an automaton, the fallback, which matches all others automatons, must be defined too. It makes sense and is quite logic.

2) That's not about the usefulness of an example, but the uselessness of the use of non-anonymous automatons in a basic model, here as [bad] example with 1 automaton. To have to use name for automaton means you have an advanced model which requires several automatons and several events per automaton, and having a fallback required makes sense to control properly the conditionals flow.

3) The point is : considering 1), 2), how work automaton and the very little usefulness in an AMXX plugin/environment (it would be different using the real Pawn) where model is going to be simple anyway, the question is completely irrelevant.