Talk:Global Functions: Difference between revisions
From Legacy Roblox Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
>Sncplay42 No edit summary |
>Camoy No edit summary |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
::I don't think many of us figured that out. I think only Aeacus had it. Also a reason why LegacyScriptMode was removed. What do you think of my revision? <sup><small><font color="grey">[[User:Camoy|Camoy]] • [[Special:Contributions/Camoy|Contribs]] (September 23 2010)</font></small></sup> | ::I don't think many of us figured that out. I think only Aeacus had it. Also a reason why LegacyScriptMode was removed. What do you think of my revision? <sup><small><font color="grey">[[User:Camoy|Camoy]] • [[Special:Contributions/Camoy|Contribs]] (September 23 2010)</font></small></sup> | ||
:::I don't think we should mention what used to be possible to do. The purpose of the article is more to explain what you can do ''now''. --[[User:Sncplay42|SNCPlay42]] 21:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | :::I don't think we should mention what used to be possible to do. The purpose of the article is more to explain what you can do ''now''. --[[User:Sncplay42|SNCPlay42]] 21:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
::::Documentation of former capabilities is a good thing. <sup><small><font color="grey">[[User:Camoy|Camoy]] • [[Special:Contributions/Camoy|Contribs]] (September 23 2010)</font></small></sup> |
Revision as of 21:36, 23 September 2010
_G is no longer available. Is this not correct? Camoy • Contribs (September 23 2010)
- It works fine if you put _G. before writing to and reading from it. --SNCPlay42 21:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- _G is available. And it is functional.
_G.x=9
repeat wait() until _G.x; local x=_G.x; print(x)
Example
_G.foo = "bar" print(foo) -- bar
Camoy • Contribs (September 23 2010)
- No, that's the only functionality that's removed. --SNCPlay42 21:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am serious, and _G is functional. I never said anything about being fully functional. It's definitely functional, though.
Just for documentation purposes, what was the date in which _G was removed, and what was the date that it returned in this new form? Also, what was the official worry about _G? Camoy • Contribs (September 23 2010)
- I think it never actually went, you could always use it like that. The only period when I think it wouldn't was when the "_G = nil" fix worked.
- The worry is that you can use it to change what the secure scripts did. --SNCPlay42 21:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)