Difference between revisions of "Talk:LlListenControl"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Windy Schor (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Why does this function exist? Can it be saving much on doing a llListenRemove then new llListen? [[User:Placid Kidd|Placid Kidd]] 18:42, 5 July 2007 (PDT) | Why does this function exist? Can it be saving much on doing a llListenRemove then new llListen? [[User:Placid Kidd|Placid Kidd]] 18:42, 5 July 2007 (PDT) | ||
: It seems to me that this function was added to cut down on memory usage. Calling llListenControl is much more efficient than llListenRemove, and then calling llListen later on. Also, you can forget about the name of the person you are listening to, as well as everything else you use in llListen. More or less, it's just there to save space. --[[User:Xaviar Czervik|Xaviar Czervik]] 18:24, 26 November 2007 (PST) | : It seems to me that this function was added to cut down on memory usage. Calling llListenControl is much more efficient than llListenRemove, and then calling llListen later on. Also, you can forget about the name of the person you are listening to, as well as everything else you use in llListen. More or less, it's just there to save space. --[[User:Xaviar Czervik|Xaviar Czervik]] 18:24, 26 November 2007 (PST) | ||
:I don't agree with Xaviar's analysis; allowing listens to be disabled I imagine would actually use more memory then not. When LSL was designed many functions were created. Programing language programmers don't know what people are going to do with the language; they make arbitrary design decisions that may or may not be beneficial down the road. It's much more likely that the programmer thought someone would find llListenControl useful. The target events have a similar design strangeness. -- [[User:Strife Onizuka|Strife Onizuka]] 23:20, 26 November 2007 (PST) | |||
== How is this sorted under S in Functions list? == | |||
I just removed "sort=SetRot" from the llSetRot page, which ironically had listed it under G instead of under S. Now, without the (optional) sort statement, llSetRot appears in the right place...I decided to look for other functions that were under the wrong letter, and I found llListenControl under S. But I found that there is no sort statement in the llListenControl page, so why is it sorted under S? An enigma to me, 20080716. | |||
Latest revision as of 08:06, 16 July 2008
Why does this function exist? Can it be saving much on doing a llListenRemove then new llListen? Placid Kidd 18:42, 5 July 2007 (PDT)
- It seems to me that this function was added to cut down on memory usage. Calling llListenControl is much more efficient than llListenRemove, and then calling llListen later on. Also, you can forget about the name of the person you are listening to, as well as everything else you use in llListen. More or less, it's just there to save space. --Xaviar Czervik 18:24, 26 November 2007 (PST)
- I don't agree with Xaviar's analysis; allowing listens to be disabled I imagine would actually use more memory then not. When LSL was designed many functions were created. Programing language programmers don't know what people are going to do with the language; they make arbitrary design decisions that may or may not be beneficial down the road. It's much more likely that the programmer thought someone would find llListenControl useful. The target events have a similar design strangeness. -- Strife Onizuka 23:20, 26 November 2007 (PST)
How is this sorted under S in Functions list?
I just removed "sort=SetRot" from the llSetRot page, which ironically had listed it under G instead of under S. Now, without the (optional) sort statement, llSetRot appears in the right place...I decided to look for other functions that were under the wrong letter, and I found llListenControl under S. But I found that there is no sort statement in the llListenControl page, so why is it sorted under S? An enigma to me, 20080716.