Zugg Software :: View topic

Beginner Joined: 09 Jun 2011 Posts: 14

I have a string list that requires some variability in its syntax. ie one of the items would be called

{The|} {dagger|daggers} of death.

When I try to have a trigger match it, it doesn't. That will only match if I actually see {The|} {dagger|daggers} of death, rather than The dagger of death or daggers of death. Does anyone know how to make a string list evaluate this variability? The way I am using it, I can't just make each variation its own member.

Wizard Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 2320

That code should work just fine as a trigger pattern. Perhaps you have accidentally changed one of the trigger options so that it is interpreting it literally?

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:54 am

He wants that to be a member of an array which is the problem.

CMUD will accept an annonymous variable like that in trigger patterns, but it doesn't like named variables looking like that.

Is there a reason you need this in a named variable?
There is no limit on the size of variables (that you are likely to reach) so you CAN have them as separate entries.

Beginner Joined: 09 Jun 2011 Posts: 14

There is a place I can go and find out how many of a unique piece of gear is currently out. I have a tracker for it. I go there and check all the uniques and this trigger is taking the number out and the item and checking the database....

so there are up to 4 variations on a single item, and it can show IDd, unIDd, plural, or singular. So I can have all 4 as separate members of the string list, but then when I go to print which uniques are out and their numbers, how do I know which version to check? if I look at @uniquelist.5, it will say 0, @uniquelist.6 is 0, @uniquelist.7 is 0, but 8 shows there are 4 of them currently out. I hope that helps shed light on why I'm doing it the way I'm doing it. And I realize my syntax for accessing the values in the db var isn't correct, just an easy way to explain it

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:55 am

Hmm... i see what you are doing, but perhaps it would be better to something like:

Beginner Joined: 09 Jun 2011 Posts: 14

yea well thats how I originally did it... I had about 120 triggers... that's why I moved to a database.

Now I am using a database that has all the syntaxes that will come out, with values of the record number in the second database. The second database is a list of each unique and the values are the number that are out. So I am catching the name in one database, using that to find the unique in the second database, then setting the number of uniques out there. My goal is to make it a single database, but having trouble there...

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:16 am

having alot of triggers is not neccisarily a bad thing, it can even be faster then using one huge all encompasing variable.
Especially if you put them all into a class that only gets turned on when you check for what is needed.