terencehill created issue #137 (closed) on 2010-07-07T15:07:14Z:
I’ve recently (in Git) made a patch which was reverted by div0 (Commit:4bef2cd9), I’m replying here to what he wrote in the commit message.
> extendmatchtime: it should check for >= 0, not > 0
Oh really? Since my version of extendmatchtime works correctly as intended just because it checks for > 0, NOT for >= 0 (it’s the point of the change), I’m really curious to know WHY it should be that way.
sv_cmd rpn /timelimit timelimit timelimit_max timelimit timelimit_increment add bound def
timelimit = bound(timelimit, timelimit_max, timelimit + timelimit_increment)
My alias version:
sv_cmd rpn /timelimit timelimit timelimit_max 0 timelimit when timelimit timelimit_increment add bound def
timelimit = bound(timelimit, (timelimit ? timelimit_max : 0), timelimit + timelimit_increment)
> QC code should not know about these aliases, as they are just that - aliases
I agree with u here… although, believe me, I did it just because already the aliases gotomap and chmap are handled by the code in a similar way. I’ve assumed the existing code is correct, but clearly it’s not then. The only way I can guess to fix it, is to convert these aliases into commands and allow only commands to be votable.
> instead, maybe an alias-provided way should be provided for checking if a votable alias can be executed
Sorry, I can’t get what u actually mean.
> also fix a newly introduced spelling error
I didn’t know Vote must be written with capital v… Well, there are other instances of this “spelling error”, u might want to fix them all…