Script AutoFix

Sometimes, While On A Limited Amount of Time To Finish A Script, I Have Problems With Typng Fast . Sometimes Its The Simplest Problem Such As :

lLSettimerEvent(); or LLSETTIMEREVENT() or LLsettimerevent

To The More Complex Spelling Mistakes Such As:

llSetimerevent(); or lletTimerEvnt; or lSetTimerEvent
..

I was Thinnking Of a Script Autofix, A Drop Down Menus Shows Up While You Are Typing in A Function and it shows the closest results to what you are trying to type..if they problem isnt fixed it highets the words in yellow. Then When you go back you click the word and it gets the closet match to it, or a button at the bottom that fixes them all.

An Example of a drop down

llSetTimer|

-------------------
|llSetTimerEvent|
-------------------
|llSetTorque |
-------------------
|llSetBalh |
-------------------

I've often thought something like that would be handy, but I don't see it happening. LL doesn't seem to care about the in-game script editor all that much. I mean, jeeze, "Find" and "Find and Replace" seem like such obvious things to have, but they arent there.

I rarely use the in-game editor anymore, except for really quick scripts, or minor tweeks to running scripts.

Gawd YES! And let us search/replace our scripts too so I don't have to copy/paste between notepad!

Yes, Could be handy, however could annoy some other people also, hence it should be an option.

I'd love if the script editor was... actualy a script editor, with lots of options and doodads.

On A Related Note, Maybe The Forums Should Auto-Uncapitalize Posts.

Reitsuki: what are you using instead?

Who would vote no to this other than punks?

People who don't script and would rather see their other favorite features implemented first.

double-click-drag support

find/replace

TAB auto-complete of ll function names

I have a much better idea - implement support for LSL in outside editors beyond cut and paste. I'm sure it would be possible to provide a simple command line parser that woul at least syntax check an external file. Once you have that, you can modify your favorite etxt editor (SlickEdit in my case) to do syntax checking for LSL. Slick also has the baility to create tag files which would go some way towards the completion problem, and it also has multiple vies, find, replace etc. etc. etc.

Its all very well saying the Lindens don't care about teh script editor, but it seems like they don't care about ANY scripting solution.

Give us the tools, we will finish the job.

The built-in script editor sucks. The Lindens know it sucks.

However, you have to remember that the Lindens have a finite amount of development and testing time. (as demonstrated by 1.4 and its subsequent patches.) They can't give us everything we ask for, even if it's clearly an improvement, would improve the SL experience for many of us, or even if it's a really popular "most-wanted" feature.

As good as they make the script editor, it'll STILL never be better than an external editor, just as the "we should be able to edit textures inside SL" crowd will never get something as good as Photoshop, even if the Lindens lose their minds and attempt to write their own paint program.

When requesting new features, one must take into account the following:

1. how much time will it take for the developers to implement this?
   
2. is there already a better third-party tool, or a simple and acceptable way of doing it via a script?
   
3. will the addition of such a feature entice more users to sign up?
   
4. will the absence of the feature turn potential (or worse yet, existing) customers away?
   
5. will such a feature improve the quality of Second Life for most users, or merely for a select few? (Keep in mind that even if they don't use it themselves, new scripting and building features will nonetheless affect the "resident" and "tourist" class of user as well as the "creator" class.)
   
6. does the absence of a feature directly affect the amount of work the Lindens have to do?
   

In short, is the cost/benefit ratio worth it? Are there better things that the Lindens could be spending their time on?

The reason I voted "no" to this poll is because while it's something that might be nice, it's not something important.

Fixing bugs is important -- there are annoying, show-stoppingly bad ones still. Features to allow us to create better things are important. Tools --however useful they might be-- aren't as important.

I voted no too Catherine. However, I still think that providing better support for an external scripting interface would be a good use of Linden's time because ultimately, that would get them almost COMPLETELY out of the script editor business.