[Mathias.]

gotcha make sense, I will test this, thanks allot for the information. So if I understand, on the source side the native look like this?

CreateNative("ConVar.BoolValue.set", Native_ConVarBoolValueSet);

[BAILOPAN]

Yup, exactly.

[KissLick]

Do you plan on adding classes in sm 1.9? I heard that sm 1.8 would have structures, and from methodmaps cross structures is only "short" way to classes.

[BAILOPAN]

Methodmaps are a long way from classes. Methodmaps are just small syntactic transformations. Classes have a bunch of semantics and need a lot of VM support.

I will probably attempt structs in 1.8, not immediately though, it'll depend on how transitional syntax gets used.

[nergal]

Originally Posted by BAILOPAN I will probably attempt structs in 1.8, not immediately though, it'll depend on how transitional syntax gets used.

FINALLY we can haz structs!

I'll prepare my plugins!

[KissLick]

Originally Posted by BAILOPAN I will probably attempt structs in 1.8, not immediately though, it'll depend on how transitional syntax gets used.

Structs and classes are the main things why I would use new API :-D

[nergal]

Originally Posted by KissLick Structs and classes are the main things why I would use new API :-D

That reminds me to ask, will these be C-style structs or C++-style structs that are similar to classes?

[ClassicGuzzi]

I don't want to bother anyone but, do you have any idea on when this structs would be done? Because I want to rewrite a really big plugin to add features and update the syntax, but I really need structs (either that or use the old enum or static vectors). Thanks

[necavi]

Originally Posted by ClassicGuzzi I don't want to bother anyone but, do you have any idea on when this structs would be done? Because I want to rewrite a really big plugin to add features and update the syntax, but I really need structs (either that or use the old enum or static vectors). Thanks

Pretty sure that that is how everyone feels - I would just wait patiently, it is most certainly a "it is done when it is done" sort of thing.

[VoiDeD]

Originally Posted by ClassicGuzzi I don't want to bother anyone but, do you have any idea on when this structs would be done? Because I want to rewrite a really big plugin to add features and update the syntax, but I really need structs (either that or use the old enum or static vectors). Thanks

Here's an approach you can use to making your code struct-ready.

// toss this methodmap junk into an include file somewhere

int g_BackingField[ MAXPLAYERS + 1 ];

methodmap MyPlayerStruct
{
	public MyPlayerStruct( int index )
	{
		return view_as<MyPlayerStruct>( index );
	}

	// helper to get client index value
	property int Index
	{
		public get() { return view_as<int>( this ); }
	}


	property int Field
	{
		public get() { return g_BackingField[ this.Index ]; }
		public set( int value ) { g_BackingField[ this.Index ] = value; }
	}
}

// the rest in your plugin's implementation

MyPlayerStruct g_PlayerFields[ MAXPLAYERS + 1 ];

public void OnPluginStart()
{
	// init struct compat gunk
	for ( int i = 1 ; i <= MaxClients ; ++i )
	{
		g_PlayerFields[ i ] = MyPlayerStruct( i );
	}

	// set client index 20's field value to 1
	g_PlayerFields[ 20 ].Field = 1;
}

Wrapping methodmaps around global fields is ugly, but it'll help port your code easily in the future when structs are implemented.