☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹☻͜͡☹
2
2
configure.lua:6: bad argument #1 to 'setfenv' (number expected, got nil)
bam: script error (-t for more detail)
does some1 know what i have to change
configure.lua looks like in ddnet, and adjust the configure.lua in your ddnetpploadfile_ function
configure.lua looks like in ddnet, and adjust the configure.lua in your ddnetpp
[1:41 PM] heinrich5991: especially the loadfile_ functionloadfile_ function of ddnet
nilnil is kind of like NULL in C++loadfile returns null and setfenv would failsetfenv fails on nilnil and only calls setfenv if file is non-nilnil if loadfile returns nilloadfile_ to deal with a nonexisting file)
ui_mousesens?inp_mousesens
ddracecommands.hvote_no there
vote_no I see no reason to change other functionality, and definitely not without a reason
const char *pOption plz Maybe anyone else will spread his word. 
1
Bjarne Stroustrup said:
The choice between "int* p;" and "int *p;" is not about right and wrong, but about style and emphasis. C emphasized expressions; declarations were often considered little more than a necessary evil. C++, on the other hand, has a heavy emphasis on types.
A "typical C programmer" writes "int *p;" and explains it "*p is what is the int" emphasizing syntax, and may point to the C (and C++) declaration grammar to argue for the correctness of the style. Indeed, the * binds to the name p in the grammar.
A "typical C++ programmer" writes "int* p;" and explains it "p is a pointer to an int" emphasizing type. Indeed the type of p is int*. I clearly prefer that emphasis and see it as important for using the more advanced parts of C++ well. @Learath2 :PP
