Talk:Script Handle

Sleep can be used only in functions, not scripts

Functions - SQF:"Starting with Armed Assault even function based scripts can wait suspended using sleep or waitUntil." --Djura 11:03, 24 July 2006 (CEST)

Confusing: sqs and sqf Scripts

Alot of people talk about how old scripts versus new "SQF-tyle scripts" are confusing everyone. Perhaps we delineate what we are refering to by addressing them as OFP Scripts and ARMA Scripts? I only say this because a disclaimer on a page that led me here was really confusing even to me (confusing disclaimer). --CrashDome 19:01, 12 December 2006 (CET)

Yep, you're right on that one, I was also already thinking about it. Problem: Even in the ArmA community sqs scripts are rather wide spread, only advanced scripters seem to use or even know sqf scripts...

True, but by refering to ArmA related sqs files as "OFP scripts" we are even suggesting the inherent age of them. Perhaps it will further boost the idea that they suck compared to the other styles ;) --CrashDome 18:43, 13 December 2006 (CET)

Good point. So let's bring this new diction all over the world... :) --raedor 19:22, 13 December 2006 (CET)

I asked Suma about our idea and this is what he replied with:

Our guidelines are:
sqs = old syntax
sqf = new syntax
There are even many instances where you can either use a sqs or a sqf file, and both are scrips (init.sqf, initintro.sqf, exit.sqf).
Regards

I will post more detail within this article. It's contrary to my original thoughts, but I guess anything is fine by me as it is all cosmetic. I will try and be as detailed as possible in my explanation for the newbies. It probably should be spread around via word of mouth a little also. - CrashDome 15:48, 15 December 2006 (CET)

What I believe should be done to fix this is to create a new page describing the SQF Syntax. The function page should then be stripped down to be similar to the current Script page, referring all syntax questions to the new page. A function just being a block of code returning a value. As a function really doesn't have to be in a file on its own at all in either ArmA or OFP. --Salisan 16:21, 15 December 2006 (CET)

Salisan, as I said in my previous statement, I was in the process of editing these articles. You're simple editing (which was just changing a few words) has completely nullified the large changes I was making. Why would you make such small changes when I said I was editing the page?? I have now lost them and cannot get them back. Unfortunately I do not have time to recreate the changes I was making. I am not going to invest any more time in this mess - you have my suggestions, you have Suma's guidelines - you guys do it. --CrashDome 16:25, 15 December 2006 (CET)

Eh, I'm sorry. But i had no idea you were working on the page right now, how could I? --Salisan 16:26, 15 December 2006 (CET)

Anyway, this is not the page that needs to be edited. This page refers to the Script handle, which is a data type in ArmA and the description in this page appears to be correct. Salisan

I know what you are saying, which is what I was trying to correct such that we could have something very similar to what you suggested. I am sorry I blew up like that though, I can't begin to explain all the things going wrong for me today and losing all that work was something that pushed me a bit over the edge. I shouldn't have replied as such. I will probably not setup the new pages but I will contribute if needed, but at a later time as I am extremely busy fixing all my problems :P - CrashDome 20:00, 15 December 2006 (CET)

LOL. I commented on all this way back in September and predicted this chaos. Check the discussion on the Talk:Function page. I suggested that the best solution would be the adoption of a new file extension for SQF syntax scripts: SQP or SQFP to indicate they run in parallel. --Mr.Peanut 16:56, 20 December 2006 (CET)