Just posting this very minor snippet of code that does nothing of significant importance.


Ohh, look another pointless snippet!

If I had any idea what these meant I'd bow down and worship you as a god.

They work in the console, btw.

Number one makes the unit mostly invisible, number two detaches every attachable of the unit.

I don't suppose we can selectively pick out certain attachments, right?

Standard class name, preset name or group checks should work.

<3
your lua messings around are really paying off for the rest of us. this is awesomefantastic.

I don't see how this is a work around or anything important? Why'd it need a new topic?

I was pointing out that attachables were not something living ouside of lua.

The first thing might have applications in stealth tech.

The second thing shows that via conversion to attachable object, attachable functions can be accessed.

I have a programming friend that is trying to help me learn lua, he said this might be a simpler way to do number two.


I don't know if this is valid, but he knows a lot of languages, but not lua.
Just asking because we were using your code as a lesson.

Looks valid, but it's a cleaner way, not a simpler way.

Nice find, mail. This will be very useful for scripts of all kinds.
CrazyMLC, one problem I see with that code is that mo is declared as a local variable every time the for loop loops. That can cause a lot of problems. It would be best to declare mo as nil outside of the for loop.

Some wiki somewhere said that if the number is not listed, it is automatically set to 1.
I don't know if that is what you mean, though.

If a variable isn't declared, it's automatically nil, actually.
And no, that's not what I mean. If you declare a local variable more than once you encounter problems.
Let me give you an example:

x would still be 5, as declaring the variable as local twice doesn't work.
So, in that code, think of it this way:

Let's say there are 2 MOs. This will be what actually happens:

Notice that "local mo" is declared twice. That's where the problem is.
On the other hand, if we declare mo as local outside of the for loop...

mo just gets set twice, which is fine.

-_-;
Well, I don't know.

...When I told him what you said he showed me this page.
then pointed at

That's not looping.