Difference between revisions of "Talk:State"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Omei Qunhua (talk | contribs) (comment) |
Omei Qunhua (talk | contribs) (more thoughts) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I've noticed an ongoing style difference in recent edits, namely in the preference between named constants versus explicit values... as can be seen from difference in edits for this entry (namely 0 or PUBLIC_CHANNEL). I have no preference either way, and can see merits for both (the named constant is more informative to new users [tells what it does], the explicit value more informative to experienced users [tells what it is])... AFAIK neither compiler actually cares one way or the other so there appears not to be any side effects. should we settle on a preference?<br/>-- '''[[User:Void_Singer|Void]]''' <sup><small>([[User_talk:Void_Singer|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Void_Singer|contribs]])</small></sup> 08:35, 27 December 2012 (PST) | I've noticed an ongoing style difference in recent edits, namely in the preference between named constants versus explicit values... as can be seen from difference in edits for this entry (namely 0 or PUBLIC_CHANNEL). I have no preference either way, and can see merits for both (the named constant is more informative to new users [tells what it does], the explicit value more informative to experienced users [tells what it is])... AFAIK neither compiler actually cares one way or the other so there appears not to be any side effects. should we settle on a preference?<br/>-- '''[[User:Void_Singer|Void]]''' <sup><small>([[User_talk:Void_Singer|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Void_Singer|contribs]])</small></sup> 08:35, 27 December 2012 (PST) | ||
:My feeling was that new users are initially introduced to llSay(0, ... as that is what they | :My feeling was that new users are initially introduced to llSay(0, ... as that is what they are presented with from the very start with 2 occurrences in the default "new script". By using PUBLIC_CHANNEL in Wiki examples immediately adds a layer of confusion. Adding an explanatory comment each time seems like an admission that we've confused them. I am strongly in favour of 99.9% of mnemonic constants, but 0 for channel 0 seems like a special case. While we're at it, I do detest (float)FALSE and (float)TRUE ... if you really want to use TRUE and FALSE for the extremes of Alpha, then let the compiler auto-cast it for you e.g. llSetAlpha(FALSE, ALL_SIDES) but llSetAlpha(0.0, ALL_SIDES) says it much better for me and has the right flavour, as it's one value on a sliding scale. [[User:Omei Qunhua|Omei Qunhua]] 14:31, 27 December 2012 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 14:31, 27 December 2012
Constant vs Explicit values?
I've noticed an ongoing style difference in recent edits, namely in the preference between named constants versus explicit values... as can be seen from difference in edits for this entry (namely 0 or PUBLIC_CHANNEL). I have no preference either way, and can see merits for both (the named constant is more informative to new users [tells what it does], the explicit value more informative to experienced users [tells what it is])... AFAIK neither compiler actually cares one way or the other so there appears not to be any side effects. should we settle on a preference?
-- Void (talk|contribs) 08:35, 27 December 2012 (PST)
- My feeling was that new users are initially introduced to llSay(0, ... as that is what they are presented with from the very start with 2 occurrences in the default "new script". By using PUBLIC_CHANNEL in Wiki examples immediately adds a layer of confusion. Adding an explanatory comment each time seems like an admission that we've confused them. I am strongly in favour of 99.9% of mnemonic constants, but 0 for channel 0 seems like a special case. While we're at it, I do detest (float)FALSE and (float)TRUE ... if you really want to use TRUE and FALSE for the extremes of Alpha, then let the compiler auto-cast it for you e.g. llSetAlpha(FALSE, ALL_SIDES) but llSetAlpha(0.0, ALL_SIDES) says it much better for me and has the right flavour, as it's one value on a sliding scale. Omei Qunhua 14:31, 27 December 2012 (PST)