[E2] Merge first() with duped()

[flarn2006]

I always see E2 programs with this line:

if (first() | duped())

Well, I think we should modify the first() command so that it returns true if it was just duped. If you want to know if it was first but not duped, you could use:

if (first() & !duped())

[somone77]

I don't see the upside to this. You can already do this. Theres no reason to have it.

[jacoby6000]

I say NO, duped() is used all the time for anti adv duping crap, and sometimes people just don't want their crap to work if someone duplicates it! I know that I always put an if(duped()){selfDestructAll()} on my crap I'm working on... And sometimes ill hide the if duped in the middle of my code somewhere really indented, so if I publish the work peepz can't steel credit and let others dupe it ^_^ not always effective, but useful!

[TomyLobo]

duped and first are very different. in first, everything is zero. in duped, some persistent vars might contain values.

[feha]

Didnt first() use to work like first() | duped() a few months ago?

But I myself like the idea, a start() that would be the same as first() | duped().

[TomyLobo]

first() | duped() also works like first() | duped().

[flarn2006]

Didnt first() use to work like first() | duped() a few months ago?

But I myself like the idea, a start() that would be the same as first() | duped().

That's an even better idea. Keep first() as it is, but add a new function.

[Asphid]

Why on earth would you want a function that does what already exists?

[flarn2006]

Why on earth would you want a function that does what already exists?

More convenient, and besides, it couldn't hurt.

[Dav1d]

I fail to see why this is necessary.
Typing " | " isn't hard.
Stop being lazy.
:hammer: