27.04.2013, 20:33
Documentation is one thing, but to be honest, I'd oppose the 5th parameter of cache_get_row anyways.
1) Scripters should know what they're doing. This addition is going to stop a runtime error from occurring, but wouldn't the warning/error/undefined behavior itself a good sign to the scripter that they're trying to fit a lot more into something smaller.
2) This breaks far too much backwards compatibility. Faaaaar to much to handle without proper documentation.
Although, got to admit, this is somewhat related to our own lazyness. It is a common expectation that sizeof on an enumeration member should return its size, but nope - this is not what the actual PAWN docs say as far as I know.
1) Scripters should know what they're doing. This addition is going to stop a runtime error from occurring, but wouldn't the warning/error/undefined behavior itself a good sign to the scripter that they're trying to fit a lot more into something smaller.
2) This breaks far too much backwards compatibility. Faaaaar to much to handle without proper documentation.
Although, got to admit, this is somewhat related to our own lazyness. It is a common expectation that sizeof on an enumeration member should return its size, but nope - this is not what the actual PAWN docs say as far as I know.