useful to create plugins like this: https://dev-cs.ru/threads/19404/

@s1lentq merge it, please :)

@s1lentq orpheu example https://forums.alliedmods.net/showpost.php?p=1290113&postcount=2

@ShadowsAdi @s1lentq I think this hook should keep the schema of PM_AirMove implementation, keeping physent parameter and an additional player index parameter

@s1lentq
CAPI_Impl.h

// PM_LadderMove hook
typedef IHookChainImpl<void, physent_t *, int> CReGameHook_PM_LadderMove;
typedef IHookChainRegistryImpl<void, physent_t *, int> CReGameHookRegistry_PM_LadderMove;

pm_shared.cpp

LINK_HOOK_VOID_CHAIN(PM_LadderMove, (physent_t *pLadder, int playerIndex = 0), pLadder, pmove->player_index + 1);

void EXT_FUNC __API_HOOK(PM_LadderMove)(physent_t *pLadder, int playerIndex)
{
	PM_LadderMove_internal(pLadder);
}

void PM_LadderMove_internal(physent_t *pLadder)
{
        // ...
}

regamedll_api.h

// PM_LadderMove hook
typedef IHookChain<void, physent_t *, int> IReGameHook_PM_LadderMove;
typedef IHookChainRegistry<void, physent_t *, int> IReGameHookRegistry_PM_LadderMove;

@dystopm
I thought I took a hasty merge, but this isn't the case, in my opinion, AirMove actually isn't a very good scheme, especially for modules where have a easy access to pmove.
I think it's better to use the wrapper with custom arguments for AMXX rather than doing it in the API.
Moreover, there are already a couple of such functions like PM_Move, PM_UpdateStepSound etc.
Don't you think?

I agree about the physent argument.

@s1lentq

I see you ended adding the physent argument which I think is fine guessing we can add logic in future to change physent structure values, so it's a yes, I agree with you.

In that case, shouldn't PM_AirMove be modified?

PD: there's a few of functions which I coded in my own fork which I find useful to be added, I'll be doing a commit taking advantage of you are merging

In that case, shouldn't PM_AirMove be modified?

No, we should keep API compatibility at least until we update the major version