On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Aidan Thornton <makos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Kelly Linden <ke...@lindenlab.com> wrote: > > Unfortunately no. LSL scripts take up 16k of memory no matter how much > they > > actually use. > > Is there any technical reason why this can't be made adjustable, > though? I know that changing the amount of script memory available for > LSL scripts would require a recompile, since it's fixed at compilation > time, but I suspect it could be done. > LSL is crufty and hacky. It would be a serious engineering and QA effort to implement such a feature. The language is pretty specific and hard coded to 16k. Even if we had a patch ready it would be a lot of QA to be sure it worked as expected. Right now if we are doing anything of this level of work we should be working on implementing a better language and not duct taping LSL. - Kelly
_______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
