Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Redundancy in Dynamic Delegates and Multi-Cast Delegates docs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    I just made sure it was updated and I am publishing it as we speak. Sorry it took so long!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Hey [MENTION=7]Jeff Wilson[/MENTION]!
    Unfortunately, it's still the same. Either it never gone live or was rewritten back to incorrect version

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Thanks for pointing this out. There was clearly some confusion when this got updated a while ago to reflect the changes to the delegate system. I fixed it locally and it should be online soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Redundancy in Dynamic Delegates and Multi-Cast Delegates docs

    The documentation pages for Dynamic Delegates and Multi-Cast Delegates list "dynamic delegates" and "wrapped dynamic delegates" separately in certain tables.

    For instance:

    DECLARE_MULTICAST_DELEGATE[_Const, _RetVal, etc.]( DelegateName ) Creates a multi-cast delegate.
    DECLARE_DYNAMIC_MULTICAST_DELEGATE[_Const, _RetVal, etc.]( DelegateName ) Creates a dynamic multi-cast delegate.
    DECLARE_DYNAMIC_MULTICAST_DELEGATE[_Const, _RetVal, etc.]( DelegateName ) Creates a wrapped dynamic multi-cast delegate.
    There is no difference in the syntax for wrapped and non-wrapped dynamic delegates; it's therefore unclear what the difference between the two is. The text next to another table, in the Dynamic Delegates page, mentions that "Dynamic delegates can be declared with a wrapper proxy method for executing the delegate.". Since the two share the same syntax, I can deduce that either all dynamic delegates are wrapped, or the decision to wrap a given delegate or leave it unwrapped is made by the engine at compile-time. I can only assume, then, that the entries for non-wrapped dynamic delegates in tables such as the one shown above are redundant.
Working...
X