llListrandmize on wiki?

here is what it has on wiki for a example but it dosent work

list dice = ["2", "4", "1", "6", "3", "5"];
list shuffled = llListRandomize(dice, 1); // error after llListRandomize

default
{
    touch_start(integer touchy)
    {
        llOwnerSay(llList2CSV(shuffled));
    }
}

i added the default stuff didnt have that >.>

Naughty, naughty! You can't execute a function outside of a state like that
Also there is no need to create another list with this function.

list dice = ["2", "4", "1", "6", "3", "5"];

default
{
    touch_start(integer touchy)
    {
        dice = llListRandomize(dice, 1);
        llOwnerSay(llList2String(dice,0));//returns 1st number in list
    }
}

i didnt write it so dont yell at me XD

yell at whoever did this in wiki lol

Ummm? If you added the default statement then you did indeed write it. It sounds like the wiki only had an example of the function call not an actual working script. Not that it really matters, just thought I'd chime in.

Yes some of the examples on the wiki aren't in complete script form. Do you think we should change that?

On a related note, do people want Examples on the constant pages? I'm going to be making some (minor) changes to the constant template and I'm wondering if the Examples section should be mandatory like it is on the function pages.

Would be nice to have an example for just about everything.

Absolutely not. Snippits showing concise, useful examples of a particular topic are much better than a junk script written around the examples that 1.) you have to dig through to get those useful snippits, and 2.) are written generally just so the thing will compile, as a full application is almost definitely going to be too much for most functions or topic pages. I fully support the level of example code currently in the wiki; there are separate example, tutorial, and library sections (here and there) and they fulfill their purpose well too.

I agree. We don't want to go down the rat-hole of writing every example as though someone is going to try to use it without learning the basics of LSL. That's what tutorials are for. The wiki should be a *reference* document, not a tutorial. Try to do both, fail at both.

I agree. Generally I am quite happy with the level of example.

The majority of times I refer to a wiki entry for a quick example of how a particuliar function or principle works, so that I can work out how that fits, or doesn't fit, into what my script is trying to accomplish. Other times I'll refer to the wiki for a reminder of one thing or another that I have forgotton, or haven't got quite right. Concise snippets are very useful for these things; more cumbersome fleshed-out and compilable examples are more suited to tutorials and librarys, imo

Not really, I understand when I see a full script verses a code snippet, and what to do with the code snippet to make it work.

As far as examples on the constant pages, I don't really think it's needed, It all depends though, do we want the wiki to teach LSL or programming? If you're a programmer, you know what a constant is, so do you really need examples of it in action? I think not.. just my take on it.

It's sounding like people aren't really interested in constants requiring examples.

Where there are examples, we should have both a simple full script example and a snippet example. (this would go into some forth coming best practices article).

Johan: Some people do use the wiki to learn programing. They come to SL with no programing experience and start in on LSL. Though the wiki currently isn't a good new user resource, mostly because we don't have the connecting content and articles.

Have no idea what the numbers are but I would venture to guess that a very high percentage of people dealing with LSL have no prior programming/scripting experience. The wiki/wikis do work and people can learn to code with them, including myself. Although it would have been considerably more difficult without the expertese available here in the forum. Unfortunately there are so many without access here.

I have been here long enough to have seen so many changes with the wikis. If there had never been a change and so many of us had not ended up jaded and disenfranchised then I can't imagine just how much more helpful it would be now.

I have graduated to other languages now including one I absolutely love: Autoit. If anyone has ever dealt with it then you will have seen that it's documentation is simply unbelievable and should be considered the gold standard. Working examples on nearly every entry in the helpfile and there are a considerable number of them.

That being said, it is our wiki and the content is strictly up to us. I feel that I have given back to the community because of my frequent contributions here. Now, after Autoit, I wonder if I might have done more good and helped a much broader audience by devoting my time to upgrading the wiki content instead. I am going to be extremely busy for the next month, but after that, maybe, just maybe I can rectify that.

The wiki as it stands is the result of just a handful of individuals, Strife, Talarus and a few others. So it seems kind of silly for Strife to ask opinions. You do what you want to do Strife, I am sure that whatever you do, it will prove helpful to others.

That seems about right, this thread is definitely not the first case of "the stuff in the wiki doesn't even compile".

Yes, of course the Wiki should have clearly marked reference material (like most man pages). However, it should also have clearly marked *tutorial* material, and useful examples.

AutoIt is a fun language, though not my favorite, (which is C#). My only gripe about the AutoIt documentation is that the constants are all mostly lumped all together. But it has been a while (year or two?) since i played with it so things may have improved.

If the LSL community were a dog, and the the LL was it's owner, the ASPCA would have been called in long ago and LL arrested for neglect.

Most man pages in my experience don't describe the functionality or the edge cases in enough detail to satisfy me.