WolfGang Senizen
Users regularly grant their friends edit permissions in order to let their friends help them edit their stuff or setup a home or something.
Then that user can't edit half the objects in the house fully because they require setup or configuring through a script menu or similar.
Most of these scripts use
if(llDetectedKey(0) == llGetOwner())
or similar for this kind of access check, if they don't want to implement a full access list system.
llSameGroup
can sometimes be used, but isn't really workable as it'd be too broad in many situations.
Exposing a check for what the script actually wants to know, is this user allowed to change me, would let scripts provide a much more seamless and expected behavior from the point of view of a user.
I propose a function that operates something like this.
integer AGENT_CAN_MOVE = 0x1;
integer AGENT_CAN_EDIT = 0x2;
integer perms = llAgentPermissionsOverObject(agent_key);
if (perms & AGENT_CAN_MOVE) llSay(0,"Agent can move object");
if (perms & AGENT_CAN_EDIT) llSay(0,"Agent can edit object");
Taking into account the objects status, being possibly, everyone can move, no mod, locked, attached, etc.
Further flags like,
AGENT_CAN_RETURN
could be implemented over time, but an initial version should probably implement at least 2, to prevent people using it as a boolean response.