Is it possible in Papyrus to reference a variable with a string identifier?

[dagobaking]

This is possible in most languages.

In Actionscript, for example, it looks like this:

theVar = theObject["theVarYouWant"];

Is there an equivalent of this in Papyrus?

[Hoamaii]

Yes, it is, as long of course as later you use it with a function which will take strings.

 

you just reference it as:

 

string MyString = "SomeString"

[dagobaking]

Thank you. That is not what I am needing.

 

I need MyString to be used to dynamically reference any number of other variables.

[Hoamaii]

Sorry for misunderstanding - I used it a couple of times to attach an Int variable to it and that works, but that's as far as my experience goes on this. Not sure it answers you question.

[Reneer]

If I understand what you're looking for properly, you want something like GetPropertyValue, which returns a script property based on the string name of the property.

[dagobaking]

Thank you. Yes! That is what I need. But, I need it for regular variables rather than properties. Is that available?

[Reneer]

Unfortunately, only properties. Why are you restricted to variables only? What are you trying to accomplish?

[steve40]

Variables are private, so Like Reneer said, they aren't accessible. You can only access variables indirectly via a property or function, if available.

 

That said, there are functions such as GetAnimationVariableBool, GetAnimationVariableInt and GetAnimationVariableFloat that can access certain variables using string identifiers.

[pra]

So you basically want a hashMap/associative array?

 

Papyrus doesn't support that.

You could approximate that by using two arrays, one being a string array, containing the keys, and the other one containing the values.

Then you do something like

 

int i = keyArray.find(myString)

if(i >= 0)

do something with valueArray

endif

[dagobaking]

  On 6/13/2018 at 8:14 AM, Reneer said:

Unfortunately, only properties. Why are you restricted to variables only? What are you trying to accomplish?

 

I have a settings system that uses an XML file to hold all settings.

 

I don't want to create a direct dependency on MCM. But, I want other modders to be able to make MCM, holotape or whatever they want to affect the settings if they wish as an add-on. So, I made an API function to change settings externally through Papyrus.

 

They send in the name of the setting as a string along with the new value.

 

This is ok for most of the settings because they work in Flash. But, I also extend some of them out to act as Quest script level settings in Papyrus. So, I want to add a check in to apply changes to those too.

 

It would be elegant to simply have something like:

questScriptScope[varTitle] = newVarValue

Instead, I have to have a large If statement like this:

If (varTitle == "setting_to_change")
setting_to_change = newVarValue
Else If (varTitle == "blah_de_blah")
blah_de_blah = newVarValue
...
...

It's not the end of the world. But, just clunky as I am often adding/removing settings in this phase of development.

 

I CAN use properties. But, then I would have to mess around with the CK whenever I add/remove settings which is probably worse.

 

 

  On 6/13/2018 at 9:29 AM, steve40 said:

Variables are private, so Like Reneer said, they aren't accessible. You can only access variables indirectly via a property or function, if available.

 

That said, there are functions such as GetAnimationVariableBool, GetAnimationVariableInt and GetAnimationVariableFloat that can access certain variables using string identifiers.

 

Thank you.

 

  On 6/13/2018 at 10:33 AM, pra said:

So you basically want a hashMap/associative array?

 

Papyrus doesn't support that.

You could approximate that by using two arrays, one being a string array, containing the keys, and the other one containing the values.

Then you do something like

 

int i = keyArray.find(myString)

if(i >= 0)

do something with valueArray

endif

 

Thank you. That would work. Though, I think a big If statement is probably a similar amount of effort with a little less processor cost.