Difference between revisions of "Talk:RemoveItem"
imported>MaXiMiUS |
imported>GreyWanderer |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
How can an object have an inventory? I'd be pretty scared if a weapon had it's own items. This must surely be referring to the object's CONTAINERS inventory, right? --[[User:MaXiMiUS|MaXiMiUS]] 20:49, 11 April 2006 (EDT) | How can an object have an inventory? I'd be pretty scared if a weapon had it's own items. This must surely be referring to the object's CONTAINERS inventory, right? --[[User:MaXiMiUS|MaXiMiUS]] 20:49, 11 April 2006 (EDT) | ||
-- [[User:GreyWanderer|Grey]] Nope, you get that wrong. The "calling object" is the container, since the function is run/called on the container, not on the item. One could possibly change ''ObjectID'' into ''ItemID'', but for consistency reasons this should NOT be done, since ObjectID is used widely in the wiki. | |||
Note: I also removed the note on the ''retainownership flag'', since it's clearly wrong, as of now. | |||
Revision as of 17:58, 16 April 2006
Why does RemoveItem not have a TargetContainerID like RemoveAllItems? This could be useful for toggling the ownership flag (where the target is the same as the caller).
-- Grey Where's even the point in having an ownership override tag? Does that mean all objects of the id will be cleared from "stolen flag" or the first 50 items of that id with "stolen flag" will be removed, or what? edit: RemoveItem won't even compile with override flag, remove note?
How can an object have an inventory? I'd be pretty scared if a weapon had it's own items. This must surely be referring to the object's CONTAINERS inventory, right? --MaXiMiUS 20:49, 11 April 2006 (EDT)
-- Grey Nope, you get that wrong. The "calling object" is the container, since the function is run/called on the container, not on the item. One could possibly change ObjectID into ItemID, but for consistency reasons this should NOT be done, since ObjectID is used widely in the wiki. Note: I also removed the note on the retainownership flag, since it's clearly wrong, as of now.