Fix plLocation equality/comparison operators being inconsistent with each other
#302
+28
−65
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Fixes some odd behavior in PrpShop when changing a PRP file's flags. Most likely this also caused other weirdness besides that.
To prevent any future inconsistencies between the two.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In the current code, the
==,!=, and<operators forplLocationall look at different combinations of fields. In particular,==doesn't look atfFlagseven though!=does, and<doesn't look atfFlagsorfState. This PR makes all three operators consistent with each other.These buggy implementations led to some bad behavior when editing a PRP's flags in PrpShop, which seems to be fixed with this PR. This hopefully fixes the problems that @TheScarFr had when trying to change a PRP from reserved to non-reserved (I'm not completely sure, because I couldn't reproduce the bug exactly).
Apparently the buggy code has been this way for over 15 years? This seems really bad! I'm surprised that this hasn't caused any other problems with PRP edits before.
While I was here, I also replaced all
operator!=implementations withreturn !operator==(other);to prevent any future inconsistencies between==and!=, and addedoperator!=overloads to classes that only definedoperator==.