[DEV BK]

Hello, i have this code (i can't post it all for some reason's) :

new Float:WallStatus[33][3]

public plugin_init() {
	register_plugin(PLUGIN, VERSION, AUTHOR)
	
	register_clcmd("say /wallhack", "WallOnOff")

        // ....
}

public client_disconnect(id) {

	WallStatus[id][1] = 0.0
}
public WallOnOff(id)
{
	if((WallStatus[id][1] = 0.0))
	{
		WallStatus[id][1] = 1.0;
		
		
	}
	else
	{
		WallStatus[id][1] = 0.0;
	}
}

public Wallhack(id, walls) 
{
	if(is_user_alive(id) && (WallStatus[id][1] = 1.0)) 
	{
		// ...
	}
}

The problem its cannot check if WallStatus[id][1] is 1.0 or 0.0, i tested the code without /wallhack switch and its worked with no problems but nothing happen when use this client command : /wallhack

what i missing?? please help

[OciXCrom]

"=" is for assigning a value.
"==" is for comparing/checking.

So using "=" with "if" is not what you would do here.

[HamletEagle]

Originally Posted by OciXCrom "=" is for assigning a value. "==" is for comparing/checking. So using "=" with "if" is invalid.

Actually it is valid.

PHP Code:

if((a = 5)) 


will assign 5 to a and return 5. Of course, this is not how you would want "if" to behave in most cases and most likely not what OP intended.

A case where this is useful(read as "works as you want") is:

PHP Code:

new target = -1
while((target = find_ent_by_class(target, "something")) 


[fysiks]

Also note that a floating point value can never exactly represent a value of 1.0. Since you're using the variable as a boolean value, define it as a boolean tag.

new bool:WallStatus[33][3]
WallStatus[id][1] = true

[DEV BK]

Thanks you all guys, i will do what fysiks says.

However, using it as Float in my code would be much easier

[fysiks]

Originally Posted by DEV BK However, using it as Float in my code would be much easier

Based on the code that you've given, that is definitely NOT true.

[georgik57]

Hope this saves you some effort.
Sorry I can't post the main sma here(either attached or as code). For some reason, the forum sees it as some kind of potential attack and blocks it.
https://pastebin.com/8vHufWEX

[Natsheh]

it really depends on how smart the compiler is, for AMXX its stupid, if(a = 5) since its in a if statement it should be comparing and since pawn in amxx doesnt support data types there are no reason for double equal chars for comparing....

also beside pawn uses only unsign data type.........

[HamletEagle]

Originally Posted by Natsheh it really depends on how smart the compiler is, for AMXX its stupid, if(a = 5) since its in a if statement it should be comparing and since pawn in amxx doesnt support data types there are no reason for double equal chars for comparing....

That sounds like BS.

[fysiks]

Originally Posted by Natsheh it really depends on how smart the compiler is, for AMXX its stupid, if(a = 5) since its in a if statement it should be comparing and since pawn in amxx doesnt support data types there are no reason for double equal chars for comparing.... also beside pawn uses only unsign data type.........

Umm . . no. One equal sign is assignment, two is for comparison. The compiler should not promote bad coding practices and should tell you that you might be doing it wrong. If a language did do that, I'd consider it a poorly designed language.

Also, when used as integers (e.g. untagged variables) are signed integers. How else are you going to get -1? I never seen a mechanism to force them to be unsigned (granted, I've never search for it either).