User talk:Fred Gandt

From Second Life Wiki
Revision as of 03:42, 31 January 2010 by Fred Gandt (talk | contribs) (→‎touch_start and {{JIRA|SVC-3017}}: forgot to sign. in my defense...it is my talk page. but woops)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

touch_start and SVC-3017

You posted a new example to touch_start and touch_end but it looks like it shouldn't work properly due to SVC-3017. Either your example does not work properly, or both SVC-3017 and the documentation that relies upon it needs to be updated. Also, the comment "A minor concern to take note of..." is a bit confusing. -- Strife (talk|contribs) 04:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering the amount of noise in SVC-3017, I'm thinking the caveat (I rewrote the crappy Note) has little to do with SVC-3017 or SVC-3017 has mutated to include more than it's title. -- Strife (talk|contribs) 05:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hiya. I haven't read all of SVC-3017 and I can't imagine wanting to. The example script I posted does exactly what it says on the tin but, I'll pomp the notation up if you think it needs it. I encountered SVC-3017 many many months ago and can confirm that there is/was a bug that shows up if you use touch events to swap states (vague?) but I just got on and fixed it and no longer have the scripts. -- Fred Gandt (talk|contribs) 08:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I have read and posted to the jira on this issue. The script example posted here and here is to demonstrate the way things are at present and helps to show the touch_ chain to a learner. It may demonstrate bugged behavior but it is the behavior we live with.<lsl>default

{// On returning here (from state other) the touch chain will be damaged. // To trigger the touch_start (again) the prim will have to be touched twice.

   touch_start(integer nd)
   {
       state other;
   }

} state other {

   state_entry()
   {
       llSetTimerEvent(0.1);
   }
   timer()
   {
       state default;
   }

}</lsl>The above demonstrates the bug SVC-3017 was originally posted to highlight. The "two issues" are clearly so closely related that they have become one (rightly). -- Fred Gandt (talk|contribs) 11:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)