> On 17 Oct 2019, at 01:55, dz <d...@bitzend.net> wrote:
> You miss the point...
Sorry yeah, I think I misunderstood, thought we were back on return values.
In that case though I think I agree with Kevin and Dahlia that it might be
better to have an error() event, rather than a special state. With an error()
event the scripts stays in the current state and can decide for itself how to
respond. If the current state doesn't have an error() event, then the normal
behaviour occurs. This also means that ignoring the errors is as simple as just
having the event defined, even if it's empty.
> On 16 Oct 2019, at 16:45, Kevin Cozens <ke...@ve3syb.ca> wrote:
>> On 2019-10-14 11:53 p.m., dz wrote:
>> Why don't you just have the default action of the " failed " call invoke a
>> standard user defined error state.
>
> Interesting idea. One aspect of that is that it should be able to know which
> state the script was in prior to an error being triggered as it might not be
> the default one for those scripters who know you can have other states.
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
