Suggested For Deletion/LlSLURL (NewAge)

Rename the page

Alternative to deletion but, is there a template for that? -- Fred Gandt ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we can just go along and move it. Any suggestions for a new name? :) -- ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zai :-) Not knowing what the "NewAge" part is for doesn't help. Calling it simply "SLURL" would be inappropriate I think since that would direct all searches for info on SLURLs. "BuildSlurl" is the sort of name I would give a function that performed this kind of task. But is this really worth its own page? Maybe it is better suited to being featured on the OPs user page? At least then anyone seeking a function for the production of SLURLs will know that this is a user contribution and not the way to do it.-- Fred Gandt ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Heyas :)

Hm. "BuildSlurl" sounds good to me. The (NewAge) part seems to be something like a brand, since all code snippets posted by the OP got this suffix. So BuildSlurl (NewAge) might be a good spot. I'm not so happy with the code tho. It seems to be more complicated than necessary. Something like this would do the same job and be a bit shorter/simpler:

<lsl>string BuildSlurl(string region_name, vector pos){

   return "secondlife://" + llEscapeURL(region_name) 
           + "/"+ (string)((integer)pos.x) 
           + "/"+ (string)((integer)pos.y) 
           + "/"+ (string)((integer)pos.z);

}</lsl>

And yeah, that would then hardly be justifiable on having it's own page. Though in general, according to Category:LSL Library, it seems to be welcomed to be put in the main space. -- ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeppers. That's basically the same code I suggested on the talk page but even though the OP did revisit the page after my suggestion no changes were made in favor of the better code. So since you're the wiki master you'll do the move? I can well imagine I would make a hash of it. Although if we agree that the code stinks and the name is inappropriate maybe simply deleting is better in this case? On a related note and while we're here... I used llRound instead of typecasting the vector floats. Which would you reckon is the BEST way<lsl>(string)llRound(pos.x)

// OR (string)((integer)pos.x)</lsl>? My thinking is that casting float to integer in order to crop the float is basically cheating. I can't help wonder what mess it makes behind the scenes (loads of decimals get cut lose instead of being properly disposed of). Like using integers in vectors (I hate that) E.g. <1, 1, 1> instead of <1.0, 1.0, 1.0>. I'm assuming that since you used tyrpecasting instead of llRound that you think that is the better way but it is possible you hadn't ever really thought about it (we all after all get into habits). So what do you think? llRound or typecast? Another matter of taste/best-practice.... I tend to use more brackets than many other scriptors (it seems). For example<lsl>return ("secondlife://" + llEscapeURL(region_name) +

       "/" + ((string)((integer)pos.x)) +
       "/" + ((string)((integer)pos.y)) +
       "/" + ((string)((integer)pos.z)));</lsl>Any thoughts? I won't change my ways unless they are inarguably bad but I would be interested in your views if you care to share them.-- Fred Gandt (talk|contribs) 04:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, didn't notice the talk page before ^^ Yeah, the code snippets look really similar!

OK, I'll do the move then :) Deleting is always so destructive and discouraging (and also requires rare admin attention to get it done).

About the coding questions:

First, I need to say that I'm not a programmer. So my way of coding is often based on what feels right for me, rather than what might actually be correct. (Tho I'm about to learn programming soon and might hopefully have some greater insight in a couple of years.)

For typecasting vs. rounding, I felt that typecasting might be less work for the server. Cause it doesn't have to bother about the value of the first decimal, but can just discard it altogether. And llRound is also doing a typecast after the rounding, so it felt like less work. Of course, my way results in the position being a little bit more inaccurate than your method, though I figured it wouldn't be too harmful to land up to 1 meter further eastwards (or south). While, thinking about it, for the Z position, llCeil might probably be best. I don't know how much it takes to fall through a thin primfloor (probably more than to TP a meter beneath?).

About the Parentheses: I guess that it is always better to use too many than too few. The best example for that is probably SVC-779. (While, in the snipped you posted above, your amount of closing brackets isn't matching the amount of opening brackets.) I'm just too lazy to add extra brackets, when I know that they aren't making a difference. I personally think that it looks cleaner / more professional then. But it's probably a matter of taste, rather than anything else. Just like I tend to like my code formatted with method one over here.

However, I'd also be interested to hear a programmers view on things like that. And while it just comes to my mind, I'm really sad not to see Strife around :( He also didn't answer to my waves anymore. I hope he's doing well...

-- ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)