Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Equivalent of Datamapping in SugarCube Question
Hello,
I was wondering if there is a way to do datamapping in SugarCube (the latest version). I found what someone called the equivalent of it, but it didn't show any usage examples or whether or not it works with IF statements. So I tried it myself using the following code.
This was the object's variable.
This was the code that was supposed to pull the object's description up.
This is the code that was recommended/called the equivalent. i.e., what I was going off of.
I was wondering if there is a way to do datamapping in SugarCube (the latest version). I found what someone called the equivalent of it, but it didn't show any usage examples or whether or not it works with IF statements. So I tried it myself using the following code.
This was the object's variable.
<<set $testobject to {name: "test object", description: "This is an object which I am using to test SugarCube's datamapping abilities.", acquired: "You grab the object, participating against your will in the test.", carried: false, acquired: false}>>
This was the code that was supposed to pull the object's description up.
<<if $testobject.acquired == false>> <<click "Test Object">> <<set $testobject.acquired to true>> <<set $testobject.carried to true>> <<set $selectedobject to $testobject>> <<goto "item acquired">> <</click>> <</if>>
This is the code that was recommended/called the equivalent. i.e., what I was going off of.
<<set $person to {name: "bob", age: 18}>>
Your name is: <<print $person.name>> and you are <<print $person.age>> years old.
Comments
You do have an issue, however. In the following line, you're assigning a $testobject reference to $selectedobject: Because of the way the story history works, references are unsafe and will break at some point (specifically, both objects will be cloned and will no longer refer to the same object; each will have its own copy of the original).
Edit: Also. Instead of the following: I'd suggest either: Or: You're not doing anything which requires <<goto>>.