Difference between revisions of "Talk:LSL Protocol/Restrained Love Open Relay Group/follow"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "Just a suggestion, change !x-followclear to!x-follow/clear, this gives it consistency with the !x-vision and !x-vision/clear and, as I remember, really simplified the innards of …") |
Satomi Ahn (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Just a suggestion, change !x-followclear to!x-follow/clear, this gives it consistency with the !x-vision and !x-vision/clear and, as I remember, really simplified the innards of parsing to be able to determine that the command was !x-vision and then take action depending on what came next. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 16:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC) | Just a suggestion, change !x-followclear to!x-follow/clear, this gives it consistency with the !x-vision and !x-vision/clear and, as I remember, really simplified the innards of parsing to be able to determine that the command was !x-vision and then take action depending on what came next. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 16:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
:I realized that one but too late... I also made the mistake with !x-delayclear, while thinking that clearing vision was !x-visionclear. Actually it sounds to me that this way is simpler to parse: if the command is !x-blah, just parse arguments with no special case for "clear", since it is in a separate command. | |||
:Regardless, !x-vision was first and has wider adoption, so !x-delay and !x-follow should be fixed in a future version. | |||
:--[[User:Satomi Ahn|Satomi Ahn]] 05:01, 14 February 2011 (PST) | |||
Revision as of 05:01, 14 February 2011
Just a suggestion, change !x-followclear to!x-follow/clear, this gives it consistency with the !x-vision and !x-vision/clear and, as I remember, really simplified the innards of parsing to be able to determine that the command was !x-vision and then take action depending on what came next. --Chloe1982 Constantine 16:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I realized that one but too late... I also made the mistake with !x-delayclear, while thinking that clearing vision was !x-visionclear. Actually it sounds to me that this way is simpler to parse: if the command is !x-blah, just parse arguments with no special case for "clear", since it is in a separate command.
- Regardless, !x-vision was first and has wider adoption, so !x-delay and !x-follow should be fixed in a future version.
- --Satomi Ahn 05:01, 14 February 2011 (PST)