My game will end when player fails to complete one level. So I thought of making one function that plays the level and returns true if player succeeds and false otherwise. Each level will be harder than the previous and at some point the levels are impossible, so I might not need a final "Congrats, end of game jadajada" thing. So I thought of this: [edit] I lined up the columns

if (play_level(1,  60,  120) &&
    play_level(2,  70,  125) &&
    play_level(3,  80,  130) &&
    play_level(4,  90,  135) &&
    play_level(5, 100,  140) &&
    play_level(6, 110,  140))
        my_alert("Congrats, end of game jadajada");

// do stuff with the score...

The parameters of the function call are level number, number of items to collect, available time (I might extend the parameter list). But my question is, will this work. The play_level calls are supposed to happen consecutively, until one of them returns false, and after that the following lines are not executed.

Some compiler settings might force all calls to be executed, no matter whether true or false. But is it possible that some compilers will force all calls in any case? And can I rely on that every compiler makes the functions to be called in that exact order?

&& : The C standard guarantees order of evaluation from left to right, and no evaluation of the right part if the left part evaluated to 0.

Hehe, reminds me of a bug I read about in one game, where they had what basically amounts to
if (Random() + modifiers > Random() + other_modifiers) {do stuff;}
And on some OSs the left Random() would be called first, and on some the right would be called first.
This meant that recreating the same results by using the same seed failed between different OSs.

However I would prefer a loop method, since the above idea looks uncomfortable to me. At least the loop will save you some typing.

I don't count copy+paste as typing. I don't care whether I have 20 or 50 lines of those play_level calls. I like it when the parameters get in columns. I might write:
play_level(00, 060, 120) &&
Then I copy, then I paste 50 times. Then I quickly number the levels (the two zeros), right hand pushes on down arrow and backspace, left hand runs over keys 0-9 repeatedly - yes, that's typing, but simple, systematic and fast. Then I change the other parameters to whatever I want. The lines and columns in my code tell me more about the levels than the separate int arrays in ixilom's example. Of course one can line up the values in the arrays with spaces or tabs, but fifty ints on one line of code won't work. Especially if you want to make them match with an array on the next line.

You can easily merge the two arrays you know.

int levels[6][2] = {
  /* num, time */
   { 60,  120 },
   { 70,  125 },
   { 80,  130 },
   { 90,  135 },
   { 100, 140 },
   { 110, 140 },
};

for( ; level<6 && playmore; i++)
{
        playmore = play_level(level,levels[level][0],levels[level][1]);
}

Or somesuch.

Neither would I...

TF's array works exactly as well as my calls!

And I will hardcode them. The alternative would be to have some script system, like cfg files, and that would require error checking and stuff to be as reliable as hardcoding.