[groofshark]

Hello, I have a lot of options and I want to save space and turn them into "for" operator, but I dont know how... I tried but there isn't effect...

Simple Example Code

PHP Code:

enum _:options
{
    opt1,
    opt2,
    opt3,
}
new g_options[33][options];

public menu_cb(id, menu, item)
{
    if( g_options[id][opt1] && iItem == 0 ) 
    {
        return ITEM_DISABLED;
    }
    if( g_options[id][opt2] && iItem == 1 ) 
    {
        return ITEM_DISABLED;
    }
    if( g_options[id][opt3] && iItem == 2 ) 
    {
        return ITEM_DISABLED;
    }
} 


I want to do something like that, but now there isn't effect:

PHP Code:

for( new item; item<sizeof(options-1); item++ )
{    
    for( new inum; inum<sizeof(iItem-1); inum++ )
    {
        if( g_options[id][item] && iItem == inum ) 
        {
            return ITEM_DISABLED;
        }
    }
} 


I would like to help me. Thanks

[aron9forever]

just a heads up, just because the second code "looks better" it's actually worse in terms of optimization since you're uselessly adding two loops in there

this is micro optimization, aka it doesn't directly affect the server, but still, it's good not to get used to such practices as when they add up they start impacting the server

[groofshark]

Didn't understand...

[Neeeeeeeeeel.-]

If you tell us about what exactly you are doing we could help you optimizing your code. For example, what is iItem, g_option, etc.

As aron9forever said, if there are just 3 conditionals would be better to leave it as the first example.

[groofshark]

I want exactly to change the content of menu_cb function to for operators. Something like 2nd code, but correctly written. No there are more options, just I want to see example.

[fysiks]

Originally Posted by groofshark I want exactly to change the content of menu_cb function to for operators. Something like 2nd code, but correctly written. No there are more options, just I want to see example.

Just because you want to do it doesn't mean you should do it. As the others have already said, you need to provide better context of what you are trying to do. I wouldn't be surprised if this is an XY Problem.

[Nextra]

You already have a lookup table that is indexed by your item numbers. If your code is more complex than the example you provided, you should always look towards crafting this type of setup, where you simply retrieve from an array index - it doesn't matter if it is of constant size or dynamic. If you have a case where you feel that a for loop is actually necessary, you need to update your example and show us.

if (g_options[id][iItem])
{
   return MENU_DISABLED;
}

[groofshark]

Originally Posted by Nextra You already have a lookup table that is indexed by your item numbers. If your code is more complex than the example you provided, you should always look towards crafting this type of setup, where you simply retrieve from an array index - it doesn't matter if it is of constant size or dynamic. If you have a case where you feel that a for loop is actually necessary, you need to update your example and show us. if (g_options[id][iItem]) {    return MENU_DISABLED; }

That's for all menu. I want instead adding 20 if( g_options[id][iItem] ) just to make a loop and that loop to give on every "IF" - option and his number(iItem)

EDIT(sorry, double posting):

That's the example

PHP Code:

enum _:options
{
    opt1,
    opt2,
    opt3,
}
new g_options[33][options];

public menu_cb(id, menu, item)
{
    if( g_options[id][opt1] && iItem == 0 ) 
    {
        return ITEM_DISABLED;
    }
    if( g_options[id][opt2] && iItem == 1 ) 
    {
        return ITEM_DISABLED;
    }
    if( g_options[id][opt3] && iItem == 2 ) 
    {
        return ITEM_DISABLED;
    }
}  

-----> to be transfered into that

enum _:options
{
        opt1,
        opt2,
        opt3,
}    
new g_options[33][options];

public menu_cb(id, menu, item)
{
    for( new option; option<sizeof(options-1); option++ )
    {    
            for( new inum; inum<sizeof(iItem-1); inum++ )
            {
                if( g_options[id][option1~3] && iItem == inum ) 
                {
                    return ITEM_DISABLED;
                }
            }
        }
} 


I can't explain it better.

[Bugsy]

What Nextra provided should do the trick as long as your sample code is accurate to what you're trying to do.

[Nextra]

Originally Posted by groofshark That's for all menu. I want instead adding 20 if( g_options[id][iItem] ) just to make a loop and that loop to give on every "IF" - option and his number(iItem)

You don't need to loop unless you have a more complex situation.

/**
 * Given this enum the following things are true:
 *    opt1 == 0 && opt2 == 1 && opt3 == 2
 */
enum _:options
{
    opt1,
    opt2,
    opt3,
}

/**
 * That means that this if can easily be reduced.
 * Observe that when |iItem == 0| then |opt1 == iItem| is also true.
 */
if(g_options[id][opt1] && iItem == 0 ) 
{
    return ITEM_DISABLED;
}

/**
 * So instead we can write it as following, note that |opt1| has 
 * been replaced, and instead |iItem| is retrieved from the array.
 * This does not change code behavior.
 */
if(g_options[id][iItem] && iItem == 0 ) 
{
    return ITEM_DISABLED;
}

/**
 * Since the code inside of your if statements does not
 * differ (it always returns the same value), the |iItem == 0|
 * check is actually redundant. This means that we can remove it
 * and get rid of all the other if statements at the same time:
 */
if(g_options[id][iItem]) 
{
    return ITEM_DISABLED;
}

A loop would unnecessarily complicate things. You need to do something based on a single value, and you have the means to directly derive the necessary information from that single value. You don't need to search for anything, you don't need to iterate. A lookup-table is perfect for this, and you already have it in place. You just need to use it properly.