We Need Arrays!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sure, lists are EXCELLENT, but we... need... ARRAYS!

Those of you that don't know what an array is...

You have a variable, which is an item that means another items... For example...


string myvar = "value";
llSay(0, "I set 'variable' to '"+myvar+"');
// Which would say: "I set 'variable' to 'value'"

Now, what's an array? An array is a variable that acts like a list in a way, for example...

array myarray;
myarray[0] = 3;
myarray[1] = 6;
llSay(0, (string)myarray[0]+" plus "+(string)myarray[1]+" equals "+(string)((integer)myarray[0] + (integer)myarray[1]));
// Which would say: "3 plus 6 equals 9"



Now, you can practically do this with lists, however it requires more management to use lists.

An example of how arrays are easier to manage than lists:
You have a game with 8 seats (players). 2 OR more players can play.

With a list, you keey track of each players keys, and keep track of which seat they are in... Minimal amount of lists needed is 2, not to mention keeping track of which seats are actually being used, and which player is in those seats... Or you can use up your LIMITED script memory and have a variable for each seat holding the key. (Keep in mind you'd have to do the same for player bank rolls, player bets, and if it's a card game, player cards, player hand ranks, etc.)


NOW, with a heavenly array, very simple... Player sits in seat 2...

player[2] = playerkey;


Lists are great, but I see it as a limited, resource optimizing limit, that arrays would clear up, and ease the scripting process.

Any other oppinions?

P.S.
I'm pretty sure this has been requested before, but maybe we can add some pressure.

If we had more list manipulation commands, I'd be happy...

llReplaceInList( list, item, position )

llListReplaceInList( list, sublist, start_position )

Adding array notation runs afoul of type casting. the llList2String, llList2Integer, etc functions typecast as they extract. Array notation leaves no room. You could only do this if the list/array itself was of a single type.

list_integer myList = [ 1, 2, 3 ];
list_string myStrs = [ "A", "B", "C" ];

myStrs[1] = (string)myList[1];

// myStrs now is [ "A", "2", "C" ];

But the two functions mentioned above would give lists the one remaining accessor missing from LSL's list implementation.

We need a lot more than arrays.

*broken record*

Pointers discussion, yadda yadda.

What we really need is a list managed by Linden Lab of the features that are planned, being considered, and rejected, so that we can stop repeating the same discussions about features over and over.

Indeed it's a broken record Hiro, because you're learning nothing from previous attempts to explain array technology to you. See last item.

screw arrays, give us HASHTABLES

I wouldn't mind having arrays or better list controls, or both, or everything.

Well im glad to see im not the only one who thinks this might just be the greatest improvement in LSL since its release if it ever gets implemented... Lindens... Are you listening? Please? Ill give you a cookie!!!

Ouch, dude. A little personal on this one?

Arrays would be very very nice to have in LSL, while the ease of definition is one advantage my real problem with lists are

whatever[1] = 5;

is 100X easier than


whatever = llDeleteSubList(whatever,1,1);
whatever = llListInsertList(whatever,[5],1);

I hate doing that, it is so inconvenient and inefficient.

Is hash all you ever think about? If you want hash, you should talk to Darko, not post in the feature suggestions forum.

Sorry, Hiro, you're right. I didn't need to be harsh to make my point.

While it's no excuse, I used to be a lecturer in computing so I don't like it when I see misinformation being spread about how a feature works, especially if done repeatedly since it then starts to look like malice. All it takes is one small seed and it can bloom into a whole pile of new programmers getting a false impression, since many readers will have no prior knowledge in the subject. But I didn't need to be personal. Just another pointer to the explanation would have been enough.

I apologize. Keep up the good work.

Does anyone here have a link to the Linden post that said that arrays were being worked on already? I used to have it, but it's gone now.

I made the mistake of thinking that all forum posts were available indefinitely in the user's postings list, lol, and now there's a bunch of stuff I can no longer browse.

It was Don Linden who mentioned it here.

Thanks Cath. Firmly in bookmarks now.