If we use += operator to add new containers to a container, they will be added as a consequence of usual values (plainly).
static void SisTestContainer(Args _args) { container c; container pair; int i; ; pair = [1, "first"]; c += pair; pair = [2, "second"]; c += pair; pair = [3, "third"]; c += pair; infoLog.add(Exception::Info, strfmt("conlen %1", conlen(c))); for (i = 0; i<= conLen(c);i++) { pair = conPeek(c, i); infoLOg.add(Exception::Info, strfmt("%1; %2", conpeek(pair,1),conpeek(pair,2))); }
Output:
Message (16:25:24)
conlen 6
0; 0
1; 0
first; 0
2; 0
second; 0
3; 0
third; 0
If we use conins() operator, new containers will be added as containers (structured by pairs).
static void SisTestContainer(Args _args) { container c; container pair; int i; ; pair = [1, "first"]; c = conins(c, 1, pair); pair = [2, "second"]; c = conins(c, 2, pair); pair = [3, "third"]; c = conins(c, 3, pair); infoLog.add(Exception::Info, strfmt("conlen %1", conlen(c))); for (i = 1; i<= conLen(c); i++) { pair = conPeek(c, i); infoLOg.add(Exception::Info, strfmt("%1; %2", conpeek(pair,1),conpeek(pair,2))); }
Output:
Message (16:10:17)
conlen 3
1; first
2; second
3; third
P.S.: as Dron AKA andy mentioned, the following syntax does the same:
c += [pair];
1 comment:
You helped me a lot today with this post. I was about to go crazy because of these containers in containers. Oh, I'm much better now. Thanks a lot!
Post a Comment