Love Zhaoying

How does this indentation majick work? Does it require you to type a lot, or will only a few sentences do? Or, do you have to type enough for your text to wrap-around to the next line in order to tell for certain that the indentation is there?

My most fond memories in SL are from years ago with my first SL "family" from all over the world, exploring SL together.

I read this thread hoping for "demon teenager" pics, and you DID NOT DISAPPOINT!

Send me munnies!

You have my full and undivided attention.

MMmmm, baking is fun! I like cookies! <3

Yep! Even if it means several years of stopping and starting over, complete rewrites, splitting into multiple scripts with async communications, etc. LSL is a very iterative experience. If you can't figure it out the first time or it seems to complicated, next time you will probably succeed. I pretend to be functional on a daily basis. This is giving me a much-needed brain exercise to distract from a dysfunctional reality!

One of my next SL projects is to code RegEx in LSL. I'm working on PEMDAS expressions now..

Just got an email that rolling restarts completed. Perhaps they were still in-progress during your issue.

AVS*itter is the image I keep getting!

Hope that's not universal or is fixed fast, about all I do in SL is script!

Aside from the inefficiency of interpreting negative numbers, a better way of coding "EndsWith()" would seem to be: If (llGetSubString(Haystack, -1 * llStringLength(Needle), -1)==Needle) then the checked string (haystack) ends with the desired string (needle). This would take advantage of negative indexing to find the last portion of the Haystack of the same length as Needle. This is how I was going to do it. Agree? Disagree?

Are lion avatars especially welcome?

I agree, too bad I needed more memory or I would not have made any changes at all. Code readability really suffered once I combined ("unrolled") all the functions.

Yes, I saw the article that said it took less to compile "0x8..." than -1. However, these were different negative constants, not "-1". That was the real mystery for me, not "why" but "what those constants meant" since they were not -1.

The Internet of Things is made of things connected to the net. But the Internet is still not a/the thing it´s just the glue keeping things together Monti But it's called the "Internet OF Things!" *drops mic*

Success! Starting with 8192 bytes used (by code), I now have only 3584 bytes used = 4608 bytes savings!! All just from "combining" functions. Now I have to do the same to the rest of the main script!

I only found references to "-1" meaning "end of the string", yes that implies "length of the string". But, I did not see anything that explains the use of these constants.

Hmm...so it's a hack to specify a number that acts "kind of like -1" for llSubStringIndex() but in a positive fashion. Does that make sense? Otherwise, why use a constant? So this is a way to hack "> max positive integer" as a flag?

Is the "Internet of Things" a thing? If not, how is it made up of things?

I would like to know the special significance of "0x7FFFFFF0" and "0x8000000F" in the context of the examples below. My guess was that "0x80000000" means "-1". I found them used in other examples also. None of the examples explained how these constants were being used. I understand how negative indexes work with llSubStringIndex(), just not these constants. My only clues are: "0x8000000F" is integer value positive "2147483663" ..and "0x80000000" is positive integer value 2147483632. These would both seem to be negative integers, I am guessing "-15" and "-1". From the llSubStringIndex() page: integer startswith(string haystack, string needle) // http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/llSubStringIndex { return llDeleteSubString(haystack, llStringLength(needle), 0x7FFFFFF0) == needle; } integer endswith(string haystack, string needle) // http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/llSubStringIndex { return llDeleteSubString(haystack, 0x8000000F, ~llStringLength(needle)) == needle; }

This worked out so far, I am very close to saving 4K just by combining functions (until I add more new functionality, of course). Who would have thought that having functions to "simplify" your code eats so much memory? Not me, and the information was not easily obtainable - except the links you gave, which deny it is as big a problem under Mono - WRONG in my experience so far! Thanks again!

Are they skyboxes? Quite nice scenes, if so.

If this was scripted so that the poseball "pie menu" options are set by the poseball itself after rezzing, perhaps something is gone wrong and the scripts are not running in the poseball themselves? I wonder...is it possible that if you check the poseball contents you will see that the scripts are not "set to running"? The next steps are ???, it's not like replacing those poseballs back into the object after setting scripts to running will fix them..necessarily. I hope you have multiple copies of the object in case you decide to experiment.

Some of the information appears very old and refers mostly to LSL (LSL_Hacks especially). Thanks anyway, the first link was most useful.