there are no includes, and the only way to get around it is to use link messages, which makes everything run slow and degrades server performance, so i end up making everything in one huge, ugly, file, and even worse, i duplicate the same functions between scripts.
i wish you could make a script called "Globals" and its stuff, i.e. functions and variables, would be available to all scripts. if i had to choose between shared functions or shared variables i'd choose variables because that would cut down on a ton of cross script communication.
signed,
sluggish alifer
/rant off, enjoy your day!
Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
LSL makes me sad because... (rant about lack of includes) |
|
|
Rhysling Greenacre
Registered User
Join date: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 132
|
06-14-2005 21:44
|
|
Hiro Pendragon
bye bye f0rums!
Join date: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,905
|
06-14-2005 21:46
LSL makes me sad because newbies don't appreciate all that you can do, and they don't demand features that would enable us to do so much more.
_____________________
Hiro Pendragon
------------------ http://www.involve3d.com - Involve - Metaverse / Emerging Media Studio Visit my SL blog: http://secondtense.blogspot.com |
|
Rhysling Greenacre
Registered User
Join date: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 132
|
06-14-2005 21:48
/demands features!!!!
(ps check my born on date, noobie  |
|
Zindorf Yossarian
Master of Disaster
Join date: 9 Mar 2004
Posts: 160
|
06-14-2005 21:48
Do it in one script.
_____________________
Badass Ninja Penguin: Killing stuff it doesn't like since sometime in May 2004.
|
|
Rhysling Greenacre
Registered User
Join date: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 132
|
06-14-2005 21:49
Do it in one script. ya i know a man has to rant every once and a while though! |
|
Christopher Omega
Oxymoron
Join date: 28 Mar 2003
Posts: 1,828
|
06-14-2005 22:34
Eh, Im not so sure Im with you on this Rhys. Im more for a direct and synchronus method of inter-script (within same object) communication. Anything to make LSL more object-oriented. Right now I can make due with link messages, but with the massive namespace they cover (all scripts in the object, at the very least) a project with many scripts all cross-communicating with one another makes it really slow. Handling return values also really pisses me (and the people who read my scripts) off.
Im planning on open-sourcing one of the projects in which Ive made an attempt at OO soon... as soon as I make it readable ==Chris _____________________
October 3rd is the Day Against DRM (Digital Restrictions Management), learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm
|
|
Rhysling Greenacre
Registered User
Join date: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 132
|
06-15-2005 01:49
i like that idea!
actually, i think a full xmlrpc implementation would solve all my problems. that is, if a prim could send xmlrpc messages to itself. xml is a little heavy though. i'd be just as happy with something more light weight. but for now, its one huge script  |
|
Eggy Lippmann
Wiktator
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 7,939
|
06-15-2005 01:57
You can implement synchronous communication by changing to a wait_for_message state that has nothing but a link_message handler.
The only problem with this is that everything but the message you're waiting for will be discarded. _____________________
|
|
Rhysling Greenacre
Registered User
Join date: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 132
|
06-15-2005 02:10
I think it has additional problems. For instance, how do you get back to where you were before the state change? I'm sure its possible, but rather ugly.
|
