I wonder whether it would be a good idea to disallow any replies in the ChatterBox that start with ^\s*/m, but which are not /me or /msg. Instead a warning should be issued, similar to when you accidentally say the same thing twice.

This would prevent sometimes more or less private message to become embarassingly public.

I guess the code would be something like:

print "Don't know how to '/m$1', maybe you meant /me or /msg?\n" if $line =~ m#^\s*/m(\w*)# and $1 !~ m#^(e|sg)$#;

Unless of course we all want to continue to peek into people's private conversations, then we don't need this at all ;-)


Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: warn for !/m(e|sg) in CB?
by phydeauxarff (Priest) on Aug 20, 2003 at 12:28 UTC
    What you want to remove all the fun??

    If I no longer have the thrill of seeing mistakenly posted private messages, I will have to resort to watching Jerry Springer ;-)

    Seriously, nice idea....

Re: warn for !/m(e|sg) in CB?
by valdez (Monsignor) on Aug 20, 2003 at 12:29 UTC

    I second this, even better would be to reject anything that it is not recognized as a valid command.

    Ciao, Valerio

Re: warn for !/m(e|sg) in CB? (no)
by tye (Sage) on Aug 20, 2003 at 16:22 UTC

    It is already a user option: If you want it, then use a client that does that for you. (I'm glad that the java chat clients allow me to disable this "command validation" feature.)

    I don't think the HTML chatterbox will ever do this, even optionally. It is a long tradition and previous times it has been discussed there was much opposition to changing it.

    I find it a very PMesque quirk that I appreciate even if newer members don't.

                    - tye
      Oh, come now. At least we're not talking about getting rid of stumbit.
      It would not surprise me if that particular phenomenon received its own NHD entry.

      Consensus be damned. tye doesn't like it!

Re: warn for !/m(e|sg) in CB?
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Aug 20, 2003 at 14:30 UTC

    If this is ever implemented, messages starting \msg ... etc. should be caught also.

    Examine what is said, not who speaks.
    "Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
    "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -Richard Buckminster Fuller
    If I understand your problem, I can solve it! Of course, the same can be said for you.

      It should emit a different warning then though, something along the lines of "You have spent too much time on a braindamaged OS.". ;-)

      Makeshifts last the longest.

Re: warn for !/m(e|sg) in CB?
by tcf22 (Priest) on Aug 20, 2003 at 14:36 UTC
    I hate when it happens to me, but love when it happens to someone else. So how about something like this
    if(($line =~ /^\s*\/m(\w*)/) && ($1 !~ /^e|sg/) && ($username eq 'tcf22')){ print "Don't know how to '/m$1', maybe you meant /me or /msg?\n"; }else{ &post_message; }

    Ok, now my serious response.

    I agree with liz. Perhaps we could make it a user option that could be turned on/off.
Re: warn for !/m(e|sg) in CB?
by VSarkiss (Monsignor) on Aug 20, 2003 at 15:47 UTC

    A filter like that is implemented for approval nodelet, to disallow consideration reasons starting with [/\\](me|msg|tell).

    But I actually vote for not implementing it in CB. Public embarassment can be very amusing. ;-)

Re: warn for !/m(e|sg) in CB?
by pfaut (Priest) on Aug 20, 2003 at 22:18 UTC

    My embarassing moments usually come from forgetting the /msg altogether. There's no way you can catch that one.

    90% of every Perl application is already written.
Re: warn for !/m(e|sg) in CB?
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Aug 22, 2003 at 20:52 UTC

    I'd vote no if there was a vote. Filtering only on m wouldn't eliminate enough of the mistakes to make it worthwhile, and as tye said, its one of those quirks that makes PM feel more human, and well, more like a real monastery. Just as real monasteries had whispering galleries and secret passages so too does the monastery. Lets put it this way, often theres a lot more to a page than meets the eye. :-)


    <Elian> And I do take a kind of perverse pleasure in having an OO assembly language...
      Hmmm... then maybe we _should_ have the warning, but have the CB randomly publicize personal messages. That at least wouldn't disadvantage the speedtyping challenged among us... ;-)