[Tutorial] Stop the abuse of stock!

[iZN]

Originally Posted by Michael@Belgium

I like to use stock, it's short to write and easy to use. Don't tell me what to do. If it works .. it works.
So you're basicly saying to always write publics and forward them ? I don't like to type much.

You got him all wrong, he basically meant, you could simply do like this:

whateverFunction(with, whatever, parameters = 1) {}

So basically, you're not required to use "stock", you could leave it naked or the other ways of using "static" keyword if it's used locally/internally.

[Michael@Belgium]

Originally Posted by Vince

Did you actually read what I wrote? Stock is not a requirement. It is merely a modifier.

myFunction(parameter)
{
    printf("the parameter is %d", parameter);
}

This works. Nothing else required.

Originally Posted by iZN

You got him all wrong, he basically meant, you could simply do like this:

whateverFunction(with, whatever, parameters = 1) {}

So basically, you're not required to use "stock", you could leave it naked or the other ways of using "static" keyword if it's used locally/internally.

Alright, i deserve -rep now tbh. I always learned to use stock because those damn tutorials ..
And yes Vince, i did read. But too fast.

[yugecin]

I always wondered why people would put stock before every function. I would think most scripters know what they're doing, or perhaps "because it looks pretty with a keyword" (the stock keyword is ugly imho).
Just write functions and if you don't use one, the compiler will kindly remember you and then refactor your code instead of filling it with stock modifiers.

[EiresJason]

I find it much easier putting 'stock' in front of a function to find a particular function though.

Like, I want to edit the function (for example)

SetPlayerLevel(playerid, level) {
   //..code
}

But let's say I actually call it 15 times in my script. Pressing CTRL+F and searching for "SetPlayerLevel" may need to me to skip past a good few calls before I get to the actual function, but having..

stock SetPlayerLevel(playerid, level) {
   //..code
}

lets me just search for "k SetPlayerLevel" and I'm at it right away.

If that makes sense xD

[Onfroi]

I thought stock is faster as well, more optimized, it's not?

[Gammix]

Originally Posted by Onfroi

I thought stock is faster as well, more optimized, it's not?

No, i think bit slower than a function.

[Abagail]

Originally Posted by EiresJason

I find it much easier putting 'stock' in front of a function to find a particular function though.

Like, I want to edit the function (for example)

SetPlayerLevel(playerid, level) {
   //..code
}

But let's say I actually call it 15 times in my script. Pressing CTRL+F and searching for "SetPlayerLevel" may need to me to skip past a good few calls before I get to the actual function, but having..

stock SetPlayerLevel(playerid, level) {
   //..code
}

lets me just search for "k SetPlayerLevel" and I'm at it right away.

If that makes sense xD

This isn't a good enough reason to use stock, you can even simply do something such as this:

#define SetPlayerLevelEx FUNC_SetPlayerLevel

FUNC_SetPlayerLevel(playerid, level) {
   // .. code

Then you can just search for "FUNC_Functionname", - calling the function throughout the script as "SetPlayerLevelEx".

If it gets on your nerves so much try this or another method, but as I said this is NOT A GOOD REASON TO USE STOCK!

[EiresJason]

Originally Posted by Abagail

This isn't a good enough reason to use stock, you can even simply do something such as this:

#define SetPlayerLevelEx FUNC_SetPlayerLevel

FUNC_SetPlayerLevel(playerid, level) {
   // .. code

Then you can just search for "FUNC_Functionname", - calling the function throughout the script as "SetPlayerLevelEx".

If it gets on your nerves so much try this or another method, but as I said this is NOT A GOOD REASON TO USE STOCK!

Could you explain why it isn't good enough though? At the moment though , when I'm going to compile my GM, I just replace all instances of "stock " with "" so it removes the stock modifier at compile time and I have the easy search functionality when I'm scripting.

Thanks for the suggestion but it doesn't seem reasonable to do that for every single function I use

EDIT: So yeah.. it literally makes no difference? XD

[Pottus]

Originally Posted by Abagail

This isn't a good enough reason to use stock, you can even simply do something such as this:

#define SetPlayerLevelEx FUNC_SetPlayerLevel

FUNC_SetPlayerLevel(playerid, level) {
   // .. code

Then you can just search for "FUNC_Functionname", - calling the function throughout the script as "SetPlayerLevelEx".

If it gets on your nerves so much try this or another method, but as I said this is NOT A GOOD REASON TO USE STOCK!

Why even do that? Just put #define Function at the top of your script then.

Ex.
Function Test();

[Abagail]

Originally Posted by Pottus

Why even do that? Just put #define Function at the top of your script then.

Ex.
Function Test();

What do you mean by #define function? What I am saying is he should look into internally using a function name for the actual function, while within the .pwn file using another one for within the script(calling the function), however in compilation, everything will be the same.