crew – Talk
Return format
Unfortunately the returned crew array will not always be in the format
[driver,gunner,commander,turrets,cargo].
It will automatically resize, meaning for example if there was no Commander, the array would resize to 4 elements. if there was no crew at all, it would resize to an empty array
In its present form this can only really be used for counting the total crew in a vehicle (count crew _vehicle)
You still need to use Gunner _vehicle Driver _vehicle Commander _vehicle
to return the actual crew positions correctly
What may be more useful would be to have the crew return an array that does not resize So for example, if there was no driver, no commander, no turrets and only 1 unit in cargo
hint format [ "%1",crew _vehicle];
would return something like
[objnull , B 1-1-C:1 , objnull , [],[B 1-1-C:3] ]
and then have a new command for returning the number of crew in a vehicle
For example "CrewCount" --Terox 23:25, 6 February 2013 (CET)
Relevance of old notes
This command's functionality has changed over time, and older versions of it were noted to return different results than it does now. In the past therefore, code written to get the crew of a vehicle may have done seemingly odd things with this command, or used workarounds to accomplish desired results. The value therefore of older notes can be to inform readers that although we now enjoy a certain type of behaviour, there may once have been good reason to do what would now seem illogical or ridiculous.
Might I suggest that where older notes exist that seem obsolete, redundant or contradictory, we qualify the notes instead of removing them? All the while notes are maintained as short, self contained post-it-notes, they are the best evidence we have of how and why things were the way they were. Moving away from this note structure to refined and continuous articles about commands and functions will allow us to lay out in qualified progressions what to expect from what code under what conditions. But until such a change, these notes (however old and irrelevant they may be or seem) serve to maintain coherence for more than just this document, but also for derivatives thereof (code produced at the time by people who used this document as a resource).
To kill these pesky notes, we'll need them available to form the articles without them (ironic), but once the notes have gone the way of the Dodo, and we're all free to edit a whole and contiguous article (with (especially) no bizarre sense of "personal space") in order to make it as complete and useful as possible.
In summary then: Perhaps until we have rid of the mess of tacked-on appendages we know as notes, can we just leave them alone as a historical reference to work from later? -- Fred Gandt (talk|contribs) 20:43, 2 August 2014 (CEST)