Forums Feature Suggestions Token commands and identifers

About the icon, it's cool, ok?

I think it would really be useful if you could use more than one set of token identifers.

Basicly what I'm saying is that you could do /tokenize.anything and then use $anythingN.

There's a few problems with that:









etc

I'm sure you know what the problems are.

I think we decided that $anyhing.N would prevent it from breaking, except with speical characters like ? and ! and numbers.

You are the king of weird suggestions :tongue:

How is this functionally any different from using $gettok()? The only thing I can think of is possibly a meagre - probably non-existent - speed advantage. The main use of /tokenize (in my experience) is to either make it possible to rewrite $n to effectively change the parameters as the following code sees them, or to take advantage of $* - neither of which apply to your suggestion.

I dunno, just seems like another way of doing something that's already possible.

Exactly what I said :tongue:

The problem with $gettok is that if you use it too much, your code becomes harder to read

That's a line from one of my scripts, I had to use $gettok excessively because $1- was being used and I couldn't override it.

I think the second example is easier to read because it fits on one line in the mIRC editor.

Why couldn't you override it, ie something like this:

I personally hate doing that, I think it makes the code look messy, but thats just me.

It does, but it's much less messy than your current method. :[/b]o)

Well aslong as you dont need any of the more advanced $2- or $2-5 etc commands you could just use




tokenize2 o 58 %o
var %q = $whowhatwhere.draw(%o.17,%o.18,%o.3,%o.4,%o.15,%o.16)

well i like this suggestion though i think to keep it easy on the mIRC parser maybe khaled should limit it to like a couple of differnt ones like hteres the standard $1 $2 $3... etc and maybe like a tokenize.a tokenize.b since i cant imagine when youd need to tokneize more than like 2 things simultanously so you could have $1 $2 $3 like $1.a $2.a $3.a $1.b $2.b $3.b

A simple code example being
var %string = Somethign Neat O
var %stringa = Another neat thing
var %stringb = Something Else cool
tokenize 32 %string
tokenize.a 32 %stringa
tokenize.b 32 %stringb
$1- = somethign neat o
$1.a- = Another neat thing
$1.b = Something Else

PS if you didnt ntoice id like to see it as a "property" of $1 instead of something like $a1 or $a.1 just seems like it should be that way since it would be easier to parse. Either that or like
tokenize 32 completely neato
tokenize -a 32 something awsome
tokenize -b 32 something else awsome

then again i suppose you could replace -a with anything and get away with it dont really see a need to though