integer llInventoryPermissions(string invName)

Needed for automated vendors that allow a 3rd party to sell an item via your vendor.

integer llInventoryPermissions(string invName);

Give it an inventory string name and it returns a bit field of the following

CURR_USER_MOD
CURR_USER_COPY
CURR_USER_TRANSFER
NEXT_USER_MOD
NEXT_USER_COPY
NEXT_USER_TRANSFER
SHARE_WITH_GROUP
ANYONE_COPY

I agree.

I don't get it.. How's seeing the permission bits on someone else's object going to assist your vendorbox with selling said item?

Although this function could be handy for reporting permissions to the customer.. "This widget is No-Mod, Re-Saleable, ...". Course the object's contents might hose that report once they buy it.

Bos

The "vendors" I am making are completely no mod. They aren't straight vendors, and I'm not encroaching on Bosvend tech in any way I think.

However because of this, I need to ensure that what people drop on there (via the llAllowInventoryDrop functionality) can be given away and isn't set to no transfer.

I think I have a work around but it is a pain in the arse.

Not having this feature makes my code ugly!

What could, theoretically, could be done with:
if ( llInventoryPermissions(objectName) & CURR_USER_TRANSFER);

Now requires me to
- attempt to send the object via llGiveInventory to a "Bank" owned by another AV
- wait
- ask the Bank if it got the inventory item
- have the Bank check it's inventory for item
- shouts back whether the Bank got it or not
- Parse the shout

Please, pretty, pretty please I want this feature.

Good GOD That's an ugly workaround

Cant yah just try to send the object to a child prim on the vendor, and if its no transfer, it doesnt move from your inventiory?

That's just about the same as sending it to a "bank" object, although you can use link messages so it'd be faster, secure, and a bit more reliable perhaps.

---

Now I see your function's purpose. Interesting idea. For the auction thinger that you're doing I take it?

I'd think though that Contents are going to cause headaches for you, and those dropping things into the box and those buying the things that have no-mod/copy/give items in the contents -- which should be, as I've said a few times before, completely seperate from the object's permissions. Anywho, nice idea hopefully you'll get your functionality :)

Bos

Don't I wish! However, I can take an item that is no transfer, yes copy, and give a copy (via object llGiveInventory) to another object I own with no complaints. The only way it actually tests whether the transfer permission is there is to give to an object that I don't own.

And yes, that is indeed a very, very ugly workaround that has its own problems aside from the uglyness - what if two people (or one person) wish to sell an item of the same name? One will get renamed, then deleted when given and the second winner will get an error message and no goods.

My auction I think is going to be delayed longer than I hoped, this is only one issue of a couple (it is currently working but causing my code to be huge which is not good).

This would be very useful indeed.

I wouldn't mind having this.

Could come in handy.