Search the Community

sync <code> SQF makes it very easy to achieve asynchrony, while at the same time offering no means of synchronization. Some people seem to think that race conditions aren't a thing in SQF. This is of course wrong, as the scheduler is free to pause execution almost anywhere. A simple example: if (player hasWeapon _someWeapon) then { player removeWeapon _someWeapon; player addWeapon _someOtherWeapon; }; Here it is entirely possible (though admittedly unlikely) for the scheduler to pause between the condition and the effect, and consequently for the player to drop the weapon, keeping it, while also receiving the new one. I have personally witnessed a similar situation occurring in a real game under very heavy lag. Using certain hacky solutions it is possible to get around these issues. Relating to the previous example, it is for example possible to create an atomic function which at the same time attempts to remove the weapon, and returns a boolean indicating whether it was. It is also of course possible to create simple mutexes and consequently spinlocks. Neither solution is very pretty however. As such i suggest the following, very simple, script command: sync { /* some critical section */ } This command should execute the right hand argument synchronously, without the possibility of interruption by the scheduler. Use of any scheduler-only commands such as sleep and waitUntil should generate errors, just as they do in the unscheduled environment. If used in the unscheduled environment the command would have no special effect of course, behaving instead similarly to call. [<string>,...] preprocessFileLineNumbers <string> Many mod developers make clever use of macros for conditional compilation, for instance in order to enable or disable debugging features such as logging, argument validation, call stack tracing, et cetera. This is often done using macro constants defined either in each code file, or in a central header file. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be possible to include files from the mission in an addon, as it is vice versa. This means in order to enable or disable the aforementioned features, one has to rebuild the mod, or a part of it while defining different macro constants. To ease this, and undoubtedly many other tasks, i suggest the extension of the preprocessFileLineNumbers command with a variant accepting, as the left hand argument, an array of strings representing macro constants to be defined during preprocessing. For example: ["MY_MACRO", "DO_THE_DEBUG"] preprocessFileLineNumbers "myScript.sqf" Would be equivalent to defining these macros at the top of the myScript.sqf file, like so: #define MY_MACRO #define DO_THE_DEBUG // ... compileFinal <code> We can all agree that the compileFinal command, as well as the underlying concept, are great additions to SQF. However they seem to necessitate placing each function, no matter how small, into its own code file. I would often prefer to place related functions, such as class member functions, next to each other in the same code file. For instance: //map.sqf my_fnc_map_add = { // add key value pair to the map }; my_fnc_map_get = { // retrieve value from the map using the specified key }; my_fnc_map_remove = { // remove the specified key from the map }; my_fnc_map_hasKey = { // determine whether the map contains the specified key }; Now all of these functions end up being non-final, and editable. For a dirty workaround something like this might be used: my_fnc = compileFinal str {...} However extending the compileFinal command with a variant accepting code as the right hand argument seems like it would be very simple to implement. serializeObject <object> / deserializeObject [...] Persistence across sessions is nothing new. Implementing it however ranges from arduous to downright impossible (at least without hacking memory via extensions), depending on the desired fidelity. Correctly saving and loading the attachments on a weapon inside a backpack inside a vehicle for instance isn't exactly simple. What i'm suggesting is two new simple commands to streamline this process. The proposed serializeObject command, given a right hand argument of type object, might return an array containing enough information to recreate the object with high precision. Properties such as type, position, orientation, velocity, damage to each part, and the entire inventory tree should be included. The counterpart, deserializeObject, could then be used to bring this array representation back to life. This would simplify immensely the task of persistence seen in many missions and mods, as well as offer a performance boost by moving a significant portion of SQF code over to a native implementation. Please share your thoughts, or any other suggestions you might have. If any (or all) of these have been suggested before, i apologize.