mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#138955 10/01/06 05:39 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,523
Q
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Q
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,523
The topic has been covered, I just thought I'd give an example on how this feature could mess up scripts.

A very common practice among multiserver-enabled scripts is storing variables (or hash table items) whose names contain $cid, for example:
Code:
on *:join:#: set $+(%,justjoined,$nick,:,$cid) 1

This way you can distinguish between "qwerty" on network1 and "qwerty" on network2. $cid is used because CID numbers are unique, that is, each "connection" (the quotes are due to the fact that you can have more Status'es than actual connections) has its own number, which cannot be the same with that of another connection. Nothing else can play this role. Network names, for example, aren't unique (you can have a clone connected to the same network as your regular nick for example, so $network returns the same thing).

Now say you have 2 scripts loaded, yours and a 3rd-party flood protection script. If your script issues the proposed /scid -h and happens to use such variables, the variable %justjoinedqwerty4 (which was set on CID 4) now points to an inexistent session. The CID that was 4 is now 3, so any script that tries to evaluate the aforementioned variable on that connection will try to evaluate %justjoinedqwerty3, which of course doesn't exist. But even if you don't care about that because you don't use such variables, that 3rd-party script you're using does. And the fix is not a matter of "rewriting the script": there simply is no fix for this, because there's no way of storing connection-specific information without the uniqueness and constancy of CIDs.

On the other hand, nobody has provided any example that shows the usefulness of such a feature...


/.timerQ 1 0 echo /.timerQ 1 0 $timer(Q).com
#138956 10/01/06 05:42 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,024
M
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
M
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,024
I did not say you insulted anyone, I said you provoked people. You provoke people with your arrogant tone, condescending rhetorical questions, links to swear words, etc.

As for altering the definition of "flame war" for my needs:

"In an Internet newsgroup, an ongoing tirade of contrasting opinions about a topic." (source)

I see a flame war, albeit of low severity.

Do not be surprised when you're singled out when you have been the main reason for a couple of other threads being locked in the past. Through no fault of anyone else you have drawn attention to yourself. *shrugs*

That said, I do expect others to keep control of themselves and not make matters worse by posting equally rude posts, hence why I asked everyone to please read d00d's polite forum guideline sticky.

The suggestion has been made and I think enough pros/cons have been covered. Khaled can decide the rest :-)

P.S. Another good example of how to behave on this forum from qwerty. If anyone is confused as to how their posts could be construed as rude, arrogant or provocative, then please compare your posts to his and hopefully it will become clear.

Regards,

Last edited by Mentality; 10/01/06 05:47 PM.

Mentality/Chris
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard