Skip to content

Conversation

@TracerDS
Copy link
Contributor

@TracerDS TracerDS commented Oct 8, 2024

Resolves #3738, #3778

@TheNormalnij
Copy link
Member

Did you forget to push your changes?

@TracerDS
Copy link
Contributor Author

Did you forget to push your changes?

Indeed, gonna push it in a sec

@tederis
Copy link
Member

tederis commented Oct 13, 2024

Why did you marked conversations resolved without corresponding changes in the code?

@TracerDS
Copy link
Contributor Author

Why did you marked conversations resolved without corresponding changes in the code?

What do you mean? I updated the code according to your reviews

@tederis
Copy link
Member

tederis commented Oct 13, 2024

Why did you marked conversations resolved without corresponding changes in the code?

What do you mean? I updated the code according to your reviews

Hmm, that's strange. I thought I saw the files untouched. I'm sorry.

@TracerDS TracerDS requested a review from tederis November 13, 2024 11:22
@Dutchman101
Copy link
Member

Thanks for addressing all reviews and the fix itself

@Dutchman101 Dutchman101 merged commit 6a70cf7 into multitheftauto:master Dec 21, 2024
6 checks passed
MTABot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 21, 2024
{
if (lua_isnumber(L, index))
return {PopUnsafe<float>(L, index), PopUnsafe<float>(L, index), PopUnsafe<float>(L, index)};
return CVector(PopUnsafe<float>(L, index), PopUnsafe<float>(L, index), PopUnsafe<float>(L, index));
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The order of evaluation of arguments is unspecified. That leads to #3895.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

createBuilding optional arguments not handled correctly

4 participants