Jump to content

Script that counts landmarks given not working


Liana Halostar
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3598 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

I have the following script that counts how many LMs have been given. The problem is that it always tells me it has given 0 LMs even when I know it has given some out. (And yes, I reset the script.) Any ideas? Or maybe a different script that works?

integer gifts = 0; // sets initial value to zero
 
default
{
    on_rez(integer start_param)
    {
        llResetScript(); // this resets whenever the prim is brought from inventory
    }
 
    state_entry()
    {
        llSetText( "Touch for a Landmark", <1.0, 1.0, 1.0>, 1.0);
        //sets the hover text "message", color (here white), and intensity (can be zero to 1.0)
    }
 
    touch_start(integer total_number)
    {
        if ( llDetectedKey(0) != llGetOwner() )// if the toucher is NOT the owner (!=)
        {
            gifts = gifts++; // count up one from previous value
            llGiveInventory(llDetectedKey(0), llGetInventoryName(INVENTORY_LANDMARK, 0));
        }
        else if ( llDetectedKey(0) == llGetOwner() ) // if the toucher IS the owner (==)
        {
            llOwnerSay((string)gifts + " people have gotten landmarks from me!");
        }
    }
}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohh... this is a lovely question! Worth some elaboration. The problem is of course with gifts = gifts++ as Rolig pointed out, but why? In fact, it is one of the very frequent interview questions and the number of entry-level programmers not getting a job because failing to evaluate i = i++ is probably a few too many.

The answer has to do with something called sequence point. It is well defined in here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_point

The article might be a lil too complex for LSL wannabees but would mighty help in preparing for that interview for whoever has it scheduled :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Given the way gifts is being called. There is no need for gifts = gifts++; over just using gifts++ or ++gifts.


Only changed it minorly. As the duplication of is or is not owner bugged me. And a simple one time call to an else works.

 

integer gifts = 0; // sets initial value to zero default{    on_rez(integer start_param)    {        llResetScript(); // this resets whenever the prim is brought from inventory    }     state_entry()    {        llSetText( "Touch for a Landmark", <1.0, 1.0, 1.0>, 1.0);        //sets the hover text "message", color (here white), and intensity (can be zero to 1.0)    }     touch_start(integer total_number)    {        if ( llDetectedKey(0) == llGetOwner() ) {// if the toucher IS the owner (==)            llOwnerSay((string)gifts + " people have gotten landmarks from me!");        } else { // if the toucher is NOT the owner (!=)            // count up one from previous value            ++gifts;            llGiveInventory(llDetectedKey(0), llGetInventoryName(INVENTORY_LANDMARK, 0));            llOwnerSay((string)gifts + " people have gotten landmarks from me!");        }    }}

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new way of writing it does reduce script memory slightly, but not enough to be a compelling reason to do it.  The better reason is clarity. If you can get a message across in fewer words, why not do it?  Since one test is just the reverse of the other (++ vs. !=), you don't have to repeat yourself.  In fact, you can do even better by writing

touch_start(integer total_number)    {        if ( llDetectedKey(0) != llGetOwner() ) {// if the toucher is NOT the owner            // count up one from previous value            ++gifts;            llGiveInventory(llDetectedKey(0), llGetInventoryName(INVENTORY_LANDMARK, 0));        }        // Whether the toucher is the owner or not ....        llOwnerSay((string)gifts + " people have gotten landmarks from me!");    }

 After all, you are going to send the llOwnerSay message no matter what.  Just put that action at the end as a cleanup once you have decided whather to give a landmark or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point.  I didn't question your reasons for doing that, just noted that you could do it in a more compact way.  This is really the heart of scripting ... the logic, figuring out exactly what you want the script to do and developing a road map for getting there.  The rest of the stuff in this thread is challenging in its own way, but it's all mechanics, once you have the logic figured out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3598 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...