Talk:spawn

what s the difference between this command and ExecVM?

spawn need no external file like execVM, it just creates parallel code. ++Str 15:44, 6 January 2007 (CET)

both spawn and arguments spawn are documented almost identically.

with arguments spawn the syntax states that arguments can be 'anything' ie, including none at all.

these two references should be merged?

ook? 17:12, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

Why are there two articles for this scripting command? There is already a spawn article; I fail to see how this current article is any different.

Unlike the call command, spawn MUST be passed arguments. So technically there should only be one spawn article, and there should be two call articles (one for when you do pass arguments to it, and another when you do not).

I suggest this article be deleted immediately.

--General Barron 09:15, 16 January 2009 (CET)

This article was created by Suma, so I guess he should know if it is relevant or not.

The other spawn article was input from the original BI scripting commands document supplied by BI.

Somewhere around April 2007 this article and the other article became mixed together, the other article had only 'spawn code' as the syntax, after April 17 2007 it was altered to read 'argument spawn code', which is where it sits at today.

Planck 16:11, 16 January 2009 (CET)

I'm still confused. There is only one syntax that can be used with the spawn command. There is only one data type that can be passed to the command (on the right side). And you must always pass something on the left side of the command.

The spawn article is incorrect. It states that you can just write "spawn {code}". That will throw an error: you must pass something on the left side, like "[] spawn {code}".

So my point is, one of the two articles must be deleted. It's like Highlander: there can be only one. I would suggest that spawn makes the most sense to keep, because that is the command's name. However, the information in this article (spawn args) is technically correct, so it should be used in the spawn article when this one is deleted.

--General Barron 09:20, 17 January 2009 (CET)

You could very well be right in saying there can be only one, however, this article was started by Suma with the comment 'Described other spawn variant'.

Presumably he would know if there was a second variant of this command or not.

Somewhere along the line the 2 variants had become mixed by entries meant for one going into the other, I merely tried to sort it out, I will make no judgement about whether there is really another variant of the spawn command or not, I will leave this decision for others that might know for sure ... possibly Suma for example. :P

Planck 14:53, 17 January 2009 (CET)

On a related note, some commands could need cleanup here, just saw we have two pages for private, it'd make much more sense to have them both on one page and have the second page integrated as "Alternative Syntax"... --raedor 10:39, 19 January 2009 (CET)

I think those duplicate articles (one for each syntax variation) were created before we had alternative syntax options in the command template.

There are dozens of those (especially in the GUI Control commands, and I agree that it would get rid of a lot of clutter if we would combine all of those.

Any volunteers? ;-)

--Kronzky 22:39, 19 January 2009 (CET)

I guess my point is that, for this specific command, there is no alternate syntax. This is easy to verify in init.sqf. Just write: "spawn {}" (no quotes). You will get an error when you run the mission. Then change it to "[] spawn {}". You will not get an error. This should prove that, in the current version of Arma, only one syntax exists; regardless of what Suma might have said. Perhaps long ago, when Suma created this page, the alternate syntax did not throw an error. But as of now, only one syntax exists. The wiki is in error to have an alternate syntax that clearly does not exist, regardless of who created the page.

--General Barron 00:11, 20 January 2009 (CET)

Good point, that is correct in any case, spawn needs an argument. --raedor 10:20, 20 January 2009 (CET)