How is "exit;" supposed to work?

[Murklor 10]

Here's part of my script:

else { 
		hintSilent "WEST CANNOT CAPTURE THIS ZONE!";
		sleep 1;
		exit;
	}; 

	// West was already the owner of the zone
	if (_currentowner == 1) then {
		hintsilent "WEST OWNS THIS ZONE!";
		_stillunits = false;
	}
	else { 
		// Set marker color to west
		hintSilent "WEST CAPTURED THE ZONE!";
		_zonemarker setMarkerColor "ColorBlue";
		_stillunits = false;
	};

Notice the little "exit;" at the first else (_stillunits = false is the haxxor way of quitting the loop that's quickly becoming cumbersome for multiple ifs).

The problem here is that the script totally bypass it, as if it doesnt even exist. It goes into the else and prints that you cannot capture the zone, sleeps for 1 second and then prints that you've captured the zone.

Why does it jump over the exit command alltogether? :confused:

Or does exit just quit the current nest level? You'd think this little command is the simplest of things but noooooooo :p

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I'm pretty sure exit shouldn't work at all in .sqf, it's an .sqs only command.

[Murklor 10]

Oh well that could explain it. So how do one exit an sqf?

[bobby budnick 0]

Use exitWith{};

You can put something in between the brackets too for it to do when it exits. Like this:

exitWith{hint "Exiting Now"};

[Murklor 10]

Ah, I never thought of using that... because I never had a need to fill in anything in brackes, lol. Thanks.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Well, if you have good program flow you shouldn't even be exiting in the middle of execution. ExitWith is not meant to be used to exit out of scripts. You should refactor your code so that the whole script gets evaluated.

[Murklor 10]

Well, if you have good program flow you shouldn't even be exiting in the middle of execution. ExitWith is not meant to be used to exit out of scripts. You should refactor your code so that the whole script gets evaluated.

I dont, because I'm lazy :p

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I would expect a lazy person (myself as an example) to want to write shorter code, thus using better program flow... :rolleyes: or did you mean the refactoring? Laziness isn't an excuse for bad code. ;)