Mantis Bug Tracker

View Revisions: Issue #6688 All Revisions ] Back to Issue ]
Summary 0006688: suggestion for improved osAttach* and osForceAttach* functions
Revision 2013-06-24 08:49 by Starflower
Additional Information As outlined above, the second optional parameter would seem to require the first one at least to be specified - otherwise how would the script engine know which was meant? So if only one is specified, you must assume it is temporary and not force. Or, to avoid this, you could insert them in a different sequence to avoid ambiguities arising...(?) This might seem rather messy, so see the following suggestion instead:

Perhaps you could use different integer values with named constants instead? These could be ANDed to combine them, as elsewhere in LSL. (This could be one combined optional parameter.) I can foresee several possibilities but it would seem fairly simple, one way or another, to allow for all possible permutations with a rather smaller and more convenient set of functions and less duplication.
Revision 2013-06-24 08:48 by Starflower
Additional Information As outlined above, the second optional parameter would seem to require the first one at least to be specified - otherwise how would the script know which was meant? So if only one is specified, you must assume it is temporary and not force. Or, to avoid this, you could insert them in a different sequence to avoid ambiguities arising...(?) This might seem rather messy, so see the following suggestion instead:

Perhaps you could use different integer values with named constants instead? These could be ANDed to combine them, as elsewhere in LSL. (This could be one combined optional parameter.) I can foresee several possibilities but it would seem fairly simple, one way or another, to allow for all possible permutations with a rather smaller and more convenient set of functions and less duplication.
Revision 2013-06-24 08:47 by Starflower
Additional Information As outlined above, the second optional parameter would seem to require the first one at least to be specified - otherwise how would the script know which was meant? So if only one is specified, you must assume it is temporary and not force. Or, to avoid this, you could insert them in a different sequence to avoid ambiguities arising...(?) This might seem rather messy, so see the following suggestion instead:

Perhaps you could use different integer values with named constants instead? These could be ANDed to combine them, as elsewhere in LSL. I can foresee several possibilities but it would seem fairly simple, one way or another, to allow for all possible permutations with a rather smaller and more convenient set of functions and less duplication.


Copyright © 2000 - 2012 MantisBT Group
Powered by Mantis Bugtracker