Difference between revisions of "Talk:Unplayable Items"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Little confusion...: Clarification
imported>HawkFest (Little confusion...) |
imported>Haama (→Little confusion...: Clarification) |
||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
Assuming the Actor in question has some scripted token (unplayable item) in its inventory, are its script's local variables persistent or not? The citation says so, but then it explains this with a totally irrelevant issue with spell scripts variables by concluding that they are not persistent (''re-instanciating to 0'' when getting in scope means the OPPOSITE of "persitance")... If we try to follow the sentence, can a spell be a "token", and if so, how can a spell be "unplayable"? I don't understand, all I can dig here is that a token script's local variables are persistent, as well as that they are not persistent.. ??? --[[User:HawkFest|HawkFest]] 22:36, 22 October 2008 (EDT) | Assuming the Actor in question has some scripted token (unplayable item) in its inventory, are its script's local variables persistent or not? The citation says so, but then it explains this with a totally irrelevant issue with spell scripts variables by concluding that they are not persistent (''re-instanciating to 0'' when getting in scope means the OPPOSITE of "persitance")... If we try to follow the sentence, can a spell be a "token", and if so, how can a spell be "unplayable"? I don't understand, all I can dig here is that a token script's local variables are persistent, as well as that they are not persistent.. ??? --[[User:HawkFest|HawkFest]] 22:36, 22 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
:Different meaning of persistent? A local/persistent point of view doesn't work for variables. Anyway - spells have a nasty habit of resetting to 0 when the actor leaves the cell... I suppose they'd need to re-enter before you could tell if they're 0 or not, but a problem either way. That's all you need to know from that. | |||
:--[[User:Haama|Haama]] 01:59, 23 October 2008 (EDT) | |||