is this the "propper" way to find a key?
i have a table like this
local levs = {}
local maxlev = 50
local loops = maxlev
local level = 1
local xp = 5
while loops > 0 do
loops = loops - 1
levs[level] = xp
xp = math.floor(xp + (xp / 2))
level = level + 1
end
this makes a table like
[1] = 5 [2] = 7 [3] = 10 [4] = 15 [5] = 23
and so on up to 50 im now needing to compare a value to the table and find a key that matches it for example if the input is 9 it ill read the table and find the last key that has a value less than 9 so in this case they key of 7 so it would return 2 and if the input was 16 it would return 4
i currently have this
_G.XPCheck = function(XP)
local keycheck = 1
if levs[keycheck] < XP then
keycheck = keycheck + 1
else
return keycheck - 1
end
end
is there a more propper way of doing this?
0
0
0
0
2 answers
Yes, it’s also best to write your Scripts in a more compatible manner. For example here, we’d strive to ibe less dependent on the requested element being less than the given value by 1, and more of the closest, lower value instead.
To fully achieve your goal, it’s actually best to iterate backwards through the array. This way we can identify if the indexed element is equivalent to the given number, then return it, if not, return the one below it as it’ll be the first element likely to be lower. This also reduces Conditionals if you use another way.
local array = {
[1] = 5
[2] = 7
--// and so on
};
function retrieveClosestOr(array, number)
for i = #array, 1, -1 do
if (arr[i] <= number) then return array[index] end
end
return nil
end
Hope this helps, if so don’t forget to accept!
Ok, so I personally think that the best way to check a table is to use a for key, value do loop. It is great for iterating through a table.
local levs = {
[1] = 5;
[2] = 7;
[3] = 10;
[4] = 15;
[5] = 23;
}
local XP = 10
for Key, Value in pairs(levs) do
wait(1)
if Value == XP then
print("Correct Key! Key number "..Key.." is the right key!")
else
print("Wrong Key! Key number ".. Key.." is not the right key!")
end
end
Just one tiny problem: I don't know how to round the XP to the smaller value. I will work on that and try to figure it out.
0
0
0