Chris Gilbert wrote: > Thinking on it you're always removing the first affect, so you could > make the aff = ch->affected as the next value of aff, but that would > probably look really odd, and cause no end of trouble for future coders > that look at it and go 'eh?' On that note, why not simply use... while (ch->affected) Regards, Peter +------------------------------------------------------------+ | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: | | http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | +------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/11/01 PDT