[sldev] Sim Size Limits?
tateru.nino at gmail.com
Sat Nov 1 10:29:21 PDT 2008
The irony here also is that should the function actually ever be needed
the odds are that virtually no script will actually be using it at that
time anyway. It probably isn't reasonable to assume that LSL scripts
will have _fewer_ wired-in constants than the code, right?
Kent Quirk (Q Linden) wrote:
> There are things that are worth abstracting, and things that aren't.
> Writing a function that returns pi in case its value changes someday
> is the extreme example. This isn't quite in that category, but it's
> closer to that than to, say, the gravitational acceleration.
> Here's my real objection -- you're asking for adding a special-purpose
> function to the LSL namespace that returns one value that's unlikely
> to change. Granted, on other platforms like OpenSim, it may well
> change (although as Doug said, it's also baked into our protocols, so
> it's not quite so easily changed as one might think). Designing for
> every future possibility has a name -- overdesign -- and it can be the
> death of projects as people try to keep up with all the things they
> thought they might need someday.
> With that said, though, I think there could be a reasonable middle
> ground: something like llGetWorldConstant(int identifier) where you
> can look up values of certain world constants, like gravity, direction
> of gravity, size of sim, coordinate of the center of the sim, and so
> forth. We'd want to define a namespace for the constants -- similar to
> the way OpenGL has GL constants -- so that developers of compatible
> platforms could have their own specific constants, there could be
> standard values implemented by all, and a place for proposed future
> I would be prepared to support a well-developed proposal for such a
> function (provided it also included a proposal for how to manage the
> namespace of constants). I still don't think I'd support a specific
> function for this particular issue.
> On Oct 31, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>> Likely or not, a routine that simply returns the vector
>> "<256,256,4096>" right now seems to be a cheap way of making it
>> possible for you to change your mind in the future.
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
More information about the SLDev