Forums Bug Reports Error between transparent and $cnick

I set in address book then colors a transparent color ina line. When I recall the color set with the identifier $cnick, I have the result 0 while in mirc.ini file there is set 99.

Somebody has the same error ?

Are you sure you're using $cnick correctly? The 0 is probably because the nick isnt found in the list?

I think I used correctly the identifier $cnick by following :

$cnick(number_of_line).color

I tested also the same line by setting a name in "Name or address", thinking there is may be a problem with the first value in mirc.ini file. But it is not that problem.

What happens when you use another value (other than 99).. more specifically, a regular value, 0-15

I have the equivalent number of the color I choose.

argv0, Are you tested yourself on your mirc? However, it is marked newbee on my tablet, I tested all that before asking here.

For information, I use mIRC 6.16 on Win XP Home Edition.

I think the real question here is how you entered 99 as a valid cnick colour:

//cnick -a $me 99
* /cnick: insufficient parameters

//cnick -a $me 4
* Added argv[0] to color list

So, I conclude, it's not in fact a bug. It's a limitation which exists by design. For one reason or another, mIRC has no reason for transparent cnicks and so you cannot use it as a valid colour. Maybe you can suggest it as a feature for the next version, but I personally don't see the point.

On a similar note, I don't know how you got the 99 into the mirc.ini in the first place, unless you directly put it in there-- which is definitely not the right way to input options, so it's not really fair to start calling mIRC buggy when you're trying to hack it up and avoid all the proper input methods

I'm sorry if I have misunderstood the question of argv0.

I have entrered the transparent color via the dialog in adresse book tab colors then click on "add" button. You see on the left and on the top a combo box with available colors.
You'll see the 15 colors and a 16th color with lines which is the signification of a transparent color. the number 99 is seen after viewing the mirc.ini file.
(I know it is bad to write in it, but thanks to say it )

I don't know how long the transparent color is installed on mIRC. So, is it a bug, or a lapse of memory of programmers or a setting that result this problem ?

In mirc.hlp, title page "control codes" there this line :

I made some tests and I constated $cnick take the color "normal text" when I use a transparent color (which can be a regular mean).
But, I would like to know how can I know when I set up a transparent color with $cnick ?

I think that the stripes selection means "apply no custom color to this nick but keep the normal nicklist/text/nick color" and not "make this nick transparent".

I don't understand. Can you explain me better please ?

Actually, in mirc, color 99, or "transparent," just means that it uses the normal text color. For the nick colors, mirc just looks at the $color(normal text) and uses that for such nicks. You can test this by changing the color for normal text in the colors dialog, alt+k. $cnick(N).color will return whatever you set it to.

Now, this doesn't seem to me to be a bug as such; it seems to be the way that khaled wanted it. However, I do think it ought to return 99, so that you can do scripting of such things as join/part events and color them in an appropriate way without too much trouble (ie, one line of code that does any color, including none -- this way, the color 99 one is a catch-all that only triggers if no other rules do.) That sounds like a feature suggestion to me.