> Ok, this is what the prototype looks like... not sure if it's correct, but I > noticed that the declaration of act_new looks exactly the same as act_sub, so I > copied the proto. This is what I got: <snipped> > void act_sub args( ( const char *format, CHAR_DATA *ch, const void *arg1, const > void *arg2, int type, int min_pos) ); <snipped> > but the error remains....
stupid question.. what is the actual call to act_sub? have you tried replacing it with act? or act_new? why re-invent the wheel here guys? Steve, coding in my spare time.
