WoW:API GetRaidRosterInfo: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
  <center>'''GetRaidRosterInfo''' ''Documentation by Totem''</center>
  <center>'''GetRaidRosterInfo''' ''Documentation by Totem''</center>


Gets information about each raid member.
Gets information about a raid member.


  GetRaidRosterInfo();
  GetRaidRosterInfo();
Line 7: Line 7:
----
----
;''Arguments''
;''Arguments''
:(Integer [[API TYPE RaidIndex|RaidIndex]])


:''ID of raidmember (1 ... MAX_RAID_MEMBERS)''
:;RaidIndex : Index of raid member between 1 and 40.


----
----
Line 61: Line 62:


:  Regarding the corrispondance of raid indecies to players.  Let C be the list of players in a raid ordered by their raid index.  It appears that after any series of changes is made to the raid, at the end all players from C still in the raid will retain their original ordering (even if they left and rejoined the raid), with new members existing at any index 0<i<=40.
:  Regarding the corrispondance of raid indecies to players.  Let C be the list of players in a raid ordered by their raid index.  It appears that after any series of changes is made to the raid, at the end all players from C still in the raid will retain their original ordering (even if they left and rejoined the raid), with new members existing at any index 0<i<=40.
--[[User:Dekstra|Dekstra]] 09:11, 20 April 2006 (EDT)<br>
''What is described in the "Description" paragraph, is logically wrong.''<br>
''Let's assume it is right.''<br>
''If the raid group was full, than player A at index X left the raid, then player B joined the raid, he/she would be placed at the X index of the raid, to maintain all the other indices, according to the assumption.''<br>
''Then, if player C left the raid who was at index Y, and player A rejoined the raid, the only available index would be Y, while the assumption says it should join it at index X, which is already taken by player B.''
----
----
{{WoW API}}
{{WoW API}}
Anonymous user