Global Functions
 

Why haven't they been implemented yet? We even have function objects now but no global functions yet, its not that hard to do I'm sure. Don't like using classes for things that should be global anyways.

I am not sure how you magically expect global functions to work internally in the script engine.

Just use classes. :/ They aren't that inconvenient.

We have dynamic global variables and objects, why not functions? I doubt it would take that much of an adjustment. Just make the function lookup look at something else between the local functions and the globals. Perhaps the Control-NPC? I had originally thought functions in there should be global by default but was rather disappointed.Class functions show up in getVarNames() and getFunctions(), icky. Global functions are just easier since you don't need to remember what class the thing is in or maintain classes so they match up to a system as you update it.

Global functions are techincally possible, but they make programming actually much harder. It is making it even harder to find where the function is declared. We already have global variables, and we should not repeat that mess with global functions. It is much cleaner to put the functions in an npc and call NPCName.function(), or put it in a class.

I suggested only functions in Control-NPC would be only ones qualifying as global, it would not be difficult at all to find out where they're declared if that is the case.
Simple enough.

I'm not suggesting global functions be declared the same way that global variables are (since that would be a horror as you're saying), just that when the Control-NPC is compiled its functions added to the global list or something.

So basically, for the function lookup, if there is no prefix it would look at:
Local Object (this.) -> Control-NPC -> Static Globals.

could be nice

Why not simply use MyFunctionsNPC.function() ?

Scripter's are lazy, and classes is just a hazzle when there's alot of them

It could be nice with global functions that would make it so you couldn't make more functions with the same name, for example when you make another onCreated() event or make two functions with the same name, it will cause an error

etc.. in the end you get confused, but that was kinda a bad example, but if you could create global function it would help for example the main systems of the server, for example the mudlib that servers lately are interested in.

Yes it works and I do use it in the cases where I need to, but its not preferred when you have lots of different groups of functions in different weapons/objects or classes. And it just looks bad next to the globals that Graal has :(

For the classes, rather than having to join small utility classes to everything that uses it you can just join it to the Control-NPC and then everything can use it, including the random LAT with little knowledge of scripting.

Having globals puts everything on the same plate and would make it easier for people unfamiliar with the system. I don't think its asking much to make public functions in the Control-NPC global (and those with a global_ prefix in the function name only?). Since they would only work in the Control-NPC it would the massive chaos of someone not knowing where the global function is declared.

Bump

I would appreciate a response.

Still seeing it as bad coding style.

The negatives you stated in first post are invalidated by using the Control-NPC for global functions only.

I don't see how its bad coding style to have a single additional location in the function-lookup process.

Local Object -> Control-NPC -> Static Globals

There is nothing confusing about that. It puts all the globals in one bag so you can't miss them.

I mean, they would only be placed in the Control Npc so that it won't be a hard to find the functions when necessary.

I completely agree with this as it would be a nice addition to servers period

I don't think Stefan should honestly have to go through that just to save yourself from having to join a class or putting a weapon name in front of the function. (i.e. "FunctionsWeapon".doThingy())

There's no point. It takes almost no effort to type (@ "Control-NPC").functionname(); or this.join("classname");, and adding things like this just promotes laziness and makes things more complicated. :/