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.... | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
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
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
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
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
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.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: warn for !/m(e|sg) in CB?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) 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.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] |
|
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
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. | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] |
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. ;-)
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] |
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. ⇒ | dragonchild |
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
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. :-)
---
demerphq
<Elian> And I do take a kind of perverse pleasure in having an OO assembly language...
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] |
|
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... ;-)
Liz
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |