Talk:ListXequY

@Strife. I'm not clear about why you made those changes to ListXequY. My code was correct. Admittedly lx==ly is neater for comparing list lengths, - BUT it's not lslEditor safe. Were you just trying to make it faster if the lengths differed? Maybe there's a case for optimising for space. Omei Qunhua 10:35, 21 April 2014 (PDT)

because LSLEditor isn't official, and a comparison is much cheaper that 2 function calls? personally I think you are both nuts optimizing things in the examples category, but since the author never bothered :shrug:
-- Void ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:18, 21 April 2014 (PDT)

Except it wasn't primarily about optimisation, was it? It was about making the scripts produce sensible results with different lengths of lists. And it was about making sure the examples actually compiled. Unfortunately you yourself didn't bother to check that when you edited back in 2010, commenting that "examples should at least compile". :P And I don't care if lslEditor is "official" or not. It's a darned useful tool that many of us use, and prefer not to have separate lslEditor and SL version of scripts. Omei Qunhua 11:47, 21 April 2014 (PDT)

Actually the reason for my edit was that LSL lacks short circuiting. Removing llGetListLength was a side effect. -- Strife ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:10, 21 April 2014 (PDT)

Please do me a favour and elaborate. What was the reason for the edit? Speed optimisation? You had already said that LSL lacks short circuiting; that in itself doesn't seem to define a reason. Omei Qunhua 14:17, 21 April 2014 (PDT)

if it was only about fixing the compile all that was needed was a semicolon e.e it's not as if we don't have ListCompare
-- Void ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:33, 21 April 2014 (PDT)

ListCompare is functionally different, requiring the same order of elements. "if it was only about fixing the compile" - I repeat, it wasn't. "all that was needed was a semicolon" - well that says it all! Omei Qunhua 14:44, 21 April 2014 (PDT)