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