Difference between revisions of "Talk:WarpPos"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Wow, this thing has one huge bug, which will lead to a stack-heap collision even over a small distance. Appending the "rules" list to itself for the number of jumps is wrong. You need a prototype list to append to the actual rules list. -- [[User:Deanfred Brandeis|Deanfred Brandeis]] | Wow, this thing has one huge bug, which will lead to a stack-heap collision even over a small distance. Appending the "rules" list to itself for the number of jumps is wrong. You need a prototype list to append to the actual rules list. -- [[User:Deanfred Brandeis|Deanfred Brandeis]] | ||
:I think you have LSL confused with a real programing language, LSL operations are pass by value, you aren't appending it to itself you are appending a copy of it to itself. The only stack-heap collision issues arise from not having enough memory available to build the list. The method used here is the most efficient. [[User:Strife Onizuka|Strife Onizuka]] 11:19, 9 April 2007 (PDT) | :I think you have LSL confused with a real programing language, LSL operations are pass by value, you aren't appending it to itself you are appending a copy of it to itself. The only stack-heap collision issues arise from not having enough memory available to build the list. The method used here is the most efficient. [[User:Strife Onizuka|Strife Onizuka]] 11:19, 9 April 2007 (PDT) | ||
::What about calling the warppos function again using (0.5 * (target + llGetPos())) as new target if the number of jumps is too high ? That would recursively divide the distance in digestible chunks between large list allocations. I'm not able to test it just yet, will keep you informed.--[[User:Jesrad Seraph|Jesrad Seraph]] 03:04, 20 April 2007 (PDT) | ::What about calling the warppos function again using (0.5 * (target + llGetPos())) as new target if the number of jumps is too high ? " if (jumps > 100 ) warppos(0.5 * (destpos + llGetPos())); " That would recursively divide the distance in digestible chunks between large list allocations. I'm not able to test it just yet, will keep you informed.--[[User:Jesrad Seraph|Jesrad Seraph]] 03:04, 20 April 2007 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 02:16, 20 April 2007
Is this going to be changed in the future? TxMasterG Ping 18:50, 30 March 2007 (PDT)
buggy!
Wow, this thing has one huge bug, which will lead to a stack-heap collision even over a small distance. Appending the "rules" list to itself for the number of jumps is wrong. You need a prototype list to append to the actual rules list. -- Deanfred Brandeis
- I think you have LSL confused with a real programing language, LSL operations are pass by value, you aren't appending it to itself you are appending a copy of it to itself. The only stack-heap collision issues arise from not having enough memory available to build the list. The method used here is the most efficient. Strife Onizuka 11:19, 9 April 2007 (PDT)
- What about calling the warppos function again using (0.5 * (target + llGetPos())) as new target if the number of jumps is too high ? " if (jumps > 100 ) warppos(0.5 * (destpos + llGetPos())); " That would recursively divide the distance in digestible chunks between large list allocations. I'm not able to test it just yet, will keep you informed.--Jesrad Seraph 03:04, 20 April 2007 (PDT)