[[ --<-@ ] Black Rose]

Originally Posted by Alka why to loop trough 32 slots ? o.O pointless... you can make also : static Players[32], Num; get_players(Players, Num); for(new i = 0 ; i < Num ; i++) { if(is_user_alive) continue; //blah blah...your dead. }

What do you think get_players() do?
If Lee would've added is_user_connected() ( if that ain't allready checked by is_user_alive() (?) ) it would've been better too.
You won't notice the differance anyway.

[Lee]

is_user_alive() does indeed check whether or not they're connected - why I purposely omitted it when talking about readability is a mystery.

return ((pPlayer->ingame && pPlayer->IsAlive()) ? 1 : 0);

[ConnorMcLeod]

Originally Posted by Lee is_user_alive() does indeed check whether or not they're connected - why I purposely omitted it when talking about readability is a mystery. return ((pPlayer->ingame && pPlayer->IsAlive()) ? 1 : 0);

In this case, we want to show messages to dead players, so we have to check if players are connected since is_user_alive will return 0 for deads and for non-players.
So what's better ? use is_user_alive and is_user_connected natives or just get_players ?

[Lee]

Personally, the issue is not which is more efficient - it's about which doesn't degrade readability. Too many people around here (including me at times) are obsessed with pseudo-optimisations.

You're right - in that my usage of is_user_alive() isn't filtering dead players. I negated the following (which would never need is_user_connected()) without thinking.

if(is_user_alive())
{
    doUsefulStuffRatherThanBailing()
}

In any case, like many natives, show_hudmessage() checks whether or not they're connected before displaying the message anyway. Because of this a lot of is_user_connected() calls are redundant.

Maybe I should just shut up and stop arguing on both sides of the readability fence.

I think we may have overwhelmed Mrrr somewhat.

[Mrrr]

Thank you for all help.

You are the best !