User talk:Decimus Schomer/Scripts/Libraries/LSL MDAs

From The SchomEmunity Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

(about mda_val and mda_val_lens)

I'm not sure what you're doing that makes this true; I've definitely never had this issue. Or do you just not want to have to pass the list names to the function every time? - Katharine Berry 18:41, 18 July 2007 (BST)
The problem is that several of the functions need to return two lists, and there's no way of returning them both (no structs or pointers, like there are in C) --Decimus
Ah. That'd do it. You could always dump lists to strings and back again, but that'd be slow. Then again, this is too. (Although testing indicated that my revised version is about 5-10 times faster. Vague because there wasn't much testing. :p) Did you try the multidimensional array library before writing this? - Katharine Berry 19:30, 18 July 2007 (BST)
Actually, I didn't :( (tbh, I was told that it existed but forgot :p) And I'm not completely sure if I should trust a library written by someone who thinks that 0x20 = 20 :p
And why oh why can't LL just let us use the standard method of getting items from lists and allow lists of lists? (that's one problem with a lot of languages which are the only ones you can use for a given language - they can afford to be useless in many situations because you're forced to use it :( ) --Decimus
Because they wrote the compiler, and they're lazy.
But the point of compilers is to let the people making the code be lazy! :p
But they're moving to the mono runtime environment soon. This means that scripts will run faster. Additionally, they plan to give us C# support, and LSL3 will support real arrays. "Soon" is in LL's timescale, however. I wouldn't take that as meaning "this year."
**Hopes that they'll also add C support - he's much more comfortable with C than C++ or C#** :p And yes, when a company says "soon we'll do x", it means more like "when our complaints lines become overloaded with complaints about the non-presence of x" :p
And yes, the 0x20 = 20 thing is dubious. On the other hand, the characters don't actually need to be printable, since they never get printed. I can't say I've ever used it myself, so I won't vouch for the rest of it being any better. :p - Katharine Berry 19:56, 18 July 2007 (BST)
Verily. As one of the resident pedants, I *have* to also point out that they can't spell 'indices' right either :p (or that people rarely manage to spell 'fora' correctly) --Decimus
I dislike the word "fora" - I always misread it as "flora." As far as I can tell, both "fora" and "forums" are accurate in modern English. Having said that, "fora" does look and sound nicer than "forums." Hmm...
Side note: the indentation is getting ridiculous now. Side note 2: Spell check flags "fora" as incorrect, while "forums" is apparently correct. It's not an American dictionary either - "colour" is correct, while "color" is not. - Katharine Berry 20:07, 18 July 2007 (BST)
Technically 'forums' is wrong - it's Latin, 2nd declension neuter - forum/forum/fori/foro/foro (singular), fora/fora/fororum/foris/foris (plural)
This isn't English, it's Latin. But I'll go with "fora," seeing as that's what my dictionary says. :p - Katharine Berry 20:15, 18 July 2007 (BST)
Um, I meant "This isn't Latin, it's English." Oops. - Katharine Berry 20:15, 18 July 2007 (BST)
Well it's still a Latin word. Similar to how the correct plural of 'index' is 'indices' - that's Latin, too --Decimus
Well, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the correct plural of index is 'indexes (also 7 index's) and indices'. The OED doesn't even contain the word 'fora'! Fox
Well it's the Oxford English Dictionary, so it's hardly surprising that it uses English pluralisations for words from other languages... :p (though I suppose that learning all the different pluralisation methods for different root languages could confuzz some people :p) --Decimus
And this is the English language - we take the words, but the pluralisations have changed in the last couple thousand years. :p - Katharine Berry 16:56, 19 July 2007 (BST)
True. But you could view it as a bit of Latin (or whatever other language) embedded into the English language. But this isn't getting anywhere, is it? :p --Decimus
Nope. And the indentation is truely insane now. :p - Katharine Berry 18:15, 19 July 2007 (BST)
If you argue that Latin words have to retain Latin plurals, then every other word would have to retain its original plural. Kayak would have to have a Greenland dialect plural and kimono a Japanese plural, and koala a native Australian plural. Schoolchildren would spend years just trying to learn plurals! Fox
That's true, hence me saying "I suppose that learning all the different pluralisation methods for different root languages could confuzz some people :p". But meh :p
Some people? And this has little to do with mda_val and mda_val_lens any more. :p - Katharine Berry 22:32, 19 July 2007 (BST)
Yes, some people :p Some would have the brain capacity to not get confuzzed :p (and it doesn't really matter that we're off-subject :p)
I'm not saying you'd get confused - I'm saying it'd take a while to learn the various roots of every word. Or you could just learn the roots for each language and where each word came from, which I guess would work. (And to an extent we do now, unless you're using American English, which takes the approach of just removing any difficult word.) I'm aware I said people would get confused, but that's not what I actually meant. :p - Katharine Berry 12:16, 20 July 2007 (BST)
It's not what you meant, but it's what I said and meant :p --Decimus