PS: this is vb6

right ok, it didn't work ok, and it still doesn't, i tried sometihng else but it didn't work.

ok, i'm making a game based on the Inquisitor Gameplay by Games Workshop. I need to have an array of player 'objects' that i can refer to with multiple levels:
eg. Player(1).BodyParts.LeftLeg.Damage = 0

This is what i'm using so far, but isn't working.
If anyone has a better idea than using UDT then please tell me, otherwise could you tell me what is wrong with the following code? on third thought, is it even possible???
Help much appreciated people. thanks

Type BodyPartVars
Name As String
Cond As Integer
Armour As Integer
BodyPartDamage As Integer
End Type

Type HandVars
Name As String
Equipped As String 'as CloseCombatWeapons?
End Type


Type tBodyParts
Head As BodyPartVars
Chest As BodyPartVars
Abbs As BodyPartVars
Groin As BodyPartVars
LLeg As BodyPartVars
RLeg As BodyPartVars
LHand As HandVars
RHand As HandVars
End Type

Type ClassTypeVars
None As String
Avatar As String
Inquisitor As String
Scout As String
GunFighter As String
Cultist As String
Fanatic As String
WitchHunter As String
FarSeer As String
Librarian As String
Warrior As String
Civilian As String
GaurdVeteran As String
ImperialEngineer As String
Commander As String
TitanLegionOfficer As String
End Type

Public Type PlayerCharacter
Owner As String
Name As String
Class As ClassTypeVars
Gender As String
Race As String 'Character's race
locX As Integer ' \
locY As Integer ' -> Location on the current area (X,Y)
Damage As Integer
DamageTotal As Integer 'Max Damage

BodyParts As tBodyParts

Equipment As String
RangedWeapons As String
CloseCombatWeapons As String

Items As String 'Items the char has (Inventory)
Wear As String 'All the items one char wears
End Type

None = "No Class"
Avatar = "Avatar"
Inquisitor = "Inquisitor"
Scout = "Scout"
GunFighter = "Gun Fighter"
Cultist = "Cultist"
Fanatic = "Fanatic"
WitchHunter = "WitchHunter"
FarSeer = "Far Seer"
Librarian = "Librarian"
Warrior = "Warrior"
Civilian = "Civilian"
GuardVeteran = "Imperial Gaurd Veteran"
ImperialEngineer = "Imperial Engineer"
Commander = "Commander"
TitanLegionOfficer = "Titan Legion Officer"

Public Player() As PlayerCharacter

I dunno what`s wrong with your code... it appears to be correct... I cannot think of anything else from what you gave here... guess that`s one of the examples where C++ takes advantage over VB...

P.S. I think it would be better to use linked list rather than defined types...

Wow, spend some time thinking about what you want to do before writing a shitload of garbage code like that. If you want to do something this complicated consider using another language

Funny, I thought TPU was supposed to be a supportive learning environment, not just another newsgroup where whenever an aspiring programmer asks a question, his entire lifestyle is berated because people can't accept that he's _just starting_.

IOW, lay off, Red

Ignore CodeRed. He's like that.

Brok3n_Link, it would be very very helpful if you gave us the error message that you're getting (and the line that it's on) or explain *what* doesn't work.

- taubz

My comments about thinking and planning before coding and considering another language are both valid points, thank you. And wouldn't you call this garbage code?
"
None = "No Class"
Avatar = "Avatar"
Inquisitor = "Inquisitor"
Scout = "Scout"
GunFighter = "Gun Fighter"
Cultist = "Cultist"
Fanatic = "Fanatic"
WitchHunter = "WitchHunter"
FarSeer = "Far Seer"
Librarian = "Librarian"
Warrior = "Warrior"
Civilian = "Civilian"
GuardVeteran = "Imperial Gaurd Veteran"
ImperialEngineer = "Imperial Engineer"
Commander = "Commander"
TitanLegionOfficer = "Titan Legion Officer"
"

There are much easier ways to do that

TPU *is* a supportive learning environment, but Codered isn't really part of TPU!

gian - Aaahhh...

Red - yes, there are easier ways to do that. _however_, instead of saying that it sucks, offer a suggestion on how you would do it better, like llPen's P.S.

on a completely O/T note: I must admit, I tried reading the MT forums just a bit ago, and I must have gotten caught up in some age old rift in the populous, but I feel sick to my stomach. So thank you gian and everyone else for making TPU what it is (yes, you too Red, just need to smile a bit ^_^) ... not that I would know or anything, me and my massive 6 or so posts ^_^;;

According to the usage stats, I am the 3rd largest part of TPU Gian...

Let`s go back to Brok3n_link`s problem ok??? Brok3n_link do as taubz says: post us smth more...

Codered: That doesn't mean the rest of us accept you!

ok, sorry guys, had to post in a hurry, and my computer has been in pieces. so

My question was, I need an array of multiple level user-defined type. eg.
Player(ID).Bodyparts.LeftHand.Holding = Nothing
but i have since worked out how to do this, BUT, my other questiois, would it be easier, more efficient/bettter code preactce to use a class? no idea how to do this, but i'll find out if you say it's better. Thanks for your POSITIVE posts.

thanks for yas help.

BTW: The 'garbage code' you re referring to wasn't auctually code, it was some notes i included to show that the ClassVars type had values. sorry i didn't speify this, but as i said, i was in a rush.

Brok3n Link
brok3n@iinet.net.au

Glad that you're figuring out how to do what you're trying to ^_^.

as for C++ classes (which is what I assume you meant) vs. VB types, you ask a lot of small questions. Easier: you'd have to learn a new programming language, so probably not. More efficient: yes, easily, and there is more you can do with it too. Better code practice: you're comparing two different programming languages, so it's hard to say. If you want the good parts of VB to go along with your code, I'd say switching wouldn't be good coding practice. However, if you can work around some of the difficulties that C++ provides in terms of UI creation, then it's better practice to move to C++.

So really, you're looking at either learning a new language, or just finishing it like this, and then maybe later recreating it when (and if) you learn C++.

But it's definently good to see that you've embraced OOP, I know a few poeople who would be afriad to use more than one . operator for an expression.

Also, codered, gian - Look, please don't fight over something this silly. This doesn't need to turn into some huge prick waving contest. Honestly, I just wanted to see if I could get codered to see the other side of the coin.

Zandalf, we have been at each other's throats for almost 2 years... it's not going to stop right away :-)

hmph. VB does have classes. If you think being able to attach methods to your types would be useful and would make your code clearer, using classes may be worthwhile. On the other hand, I don't see how the traditional advantages of OOP (encapsulation, modularisation, and features like inheritance, polymorphism and so on) would be useful in this case, so I would continue as you are now. It's your choice, though.

As to CodeRed and gian, I've taken to deleting their pointless argument posts in the past. I'll probably do it again if they reply to this or argue elsewhere.

You'll have to forgive the newbie, I'm still working on my Government and Politics of the TPU forums class ^_^

and VB has classes? that's news to me. why would they bother to implement types if they have classes then?

I believe types were added as a feature of basic, and so probably would have been there close to the first release of VB. Classes would have been added later as a special VB-specific extension to the basic language.

well, I can understand the process that led to such a decision, but why do it if there is already something that can serve all the necessary purpuses? or does type in basic relate more directly to struct from c++?

Similar to structs in C rather than to structs in C++, I think. Neither C structs or Basic types can have functions in them (but C structs can hold function pointers), and neither can do stuff like inheritance.

aaaah... it's all coming back to me... I remember when my VB-obsessed friend was very happy that 6 was going to have classes. not that it meant anything to me at that point, but it does now.

and yes, i meant structs from c, not c++, I don't think you should put functions in C++ structs even today.

What is wrong with functions in C++ structs? I like to put at least a constructor in the struct to make it easier to initialize (I know, I know..constructors don't exactly count as functions).

Nothing's wrong with it, I just learned C first, and so I learned that you can't put functions in structs. Since classes can, I use structs for ADTs that don't need functions (although I am beginning to see the merits of constructors in certain examples)

basicly structs and classes are the same thing in c++ only that structs have public visibility by default, classes have private/protected (don't remember exaclty)

But i also use structs as datatypes and for everyting else i use classes. Dosent matter much i'd guess :)

Btw: can one add private/protected members to structs? Never thought about that...

ok thanks guys for all your help and, in gian and codered's arguing, entertainment!

nice debate going tho...

i think i'll stick to types here, and probably make this one of my last projects before i begin my endeavor to learn c++ PROPERLY(i've had my hax with it....)
righty, cyas thanx again

Brok3n Link
brok3n@iinet.net.au

CViper: yep (a struct is just a class with everything public by default).