mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
/server -q #197176 30/03/08 07:54 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,547
S
SladeKraven Offline OP
Hoopy frood
OP Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,547
I have thought of a small addition that I think would be quite useful, lets say you have 2 server connections active, and on the 2nd connection you use /server to connect to a different server, I'd like to see -q to be able to specify a quit message. As you're quitting, it should be possible to display a quit message?

Edit: Of course if there is such feature, it'd certainly help me outif someone could tell me. smile

Cheers,

Andrew

Re: /server -q [Re: SladeKraven] #197180 30/03/08 08:31 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 509
L
LostShadow Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
L
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 509
Ah, I get it. You want to have:

/quit $1- | /server <new server>.

To become.

/server -q $1-.

I like it.

Edit: But uh, how and where do you declare the quit message and new server?

Last edited by LostShadow; 30/03/08 08:32 PM.
Re: /server -q [Re: LostShadow] #197181 30/03/08 08:39 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,547
S
SladeKraven Offline OP
Hoopy frood
OP Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,547
Well basically you can use switches before or after the -jn switches, when you quit from a server to connect to another you just get: Quit user exited or something, I'd just like to specify a quit message when disconnecting from that server.

Well supposing you use:

/server irc.test.co.uk -j #Test -q Will be back soon gone to see my pals on irc.test.co.uk.

/server irc.test.co.uk -q Be back in a little while

Re: /server -q [Re: SladeKraven] #197182 30/03/08 08:40 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 509
L
LostShadow Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
L
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 509
Ah okay, /server <Server> [switches] -q optional quit message before connecting to the new 1.

I like it!

Re: /server -q [Re: LostShadow] #197183 30/03/08 08:46 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,547
S
SladeKraven Offline OP
Hoopy frood
OP Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,547
Yes, spot on that's what I'd like to see. smile

Re: /server -q [Re: SladeKraven] #197184 30/03/08 09:00 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
I'm not sure what the benefit is over using "quit msg | server ..."?


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Re: /server -q [Re: starbucks_mafia] #197185 30/03/08 09:07 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,547
S
SladeKraven Offline OP
Hoopy frood
OP Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,547
Well granted it does the same thing and as shown on two occasions it is simple to do, but it means having to type out two seperate commands.

Re: /server -q [Re: SladeKraven] #197187 30/03/08 09:42 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
How is this switch any more justified than any other switch that joins together two existing commands?

Perhaps we should have:
part -m bye => msg #channel bye | part #channel
fwrite -c fp TEXT => fwrite fp TEXT | fclose fp
join -p #channel => join #channel | part #channel



- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Re: /server -q [Re: SladeKraven] #197197 30/03/08 11:28 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 509
L
LostShadow Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
L
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 509
Originally Posted By: SladeKraven
Well granted it does the same thing and as shown on two occasions it is simple to do, but it means having to type out two seperate commands.


Well I guess I found your solution.

/quit $2- | /server -m $1

Make an alias, put in if statements checking for $1 and $2, etc.

Re: /server -q [Re: starbucks_mafia] #197237 31/03/08 07:18 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,527
L
landonsandor Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
L
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,527
I supposed it would be the same thng as the ban -k switch. Simply "speeds up" the process (not many characters different). As you guys have seen, I dont post much these days, but I can see the usefulness AS WELL AS the "un-need" for it. I say sure, add it in smile


Those who fail history are doomed to repeat it
Re: /server -q [Re: landonsandor] #197239 31/03/08 07:41 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
ban -k is justified because it's highly common to kick with a ban. In fact, you're far more likely to kick when banning than not. Notice that for this reason /kick doesn't have a -b switch, because kicks don't always come with bans, but the large majority of bans come with kicks.

Quitting a server with a message to connect to another one, however, is a use case that I think probably applies to... 5% of cases? Maybe I'm overexaggerating.

The point here is that if mIRC were to have a switch to execute some vaguely relevant command for every other command, we would have hundreds of switches littering every command-- and then, when mIRC has a *valid* reason to add a switch, the letter code that best suits it would be taken, complicating the interface.

Maybe in the future, /server -q will stand for "quiet" and hide the *** Notices and MOTD? I think that would be a better meaning for "-q", personally. (this is not a suggestion)


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Re: /server -q [Re: argv0] #197242 31/03/08 08:39 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,547
S
SladeKraven Offline OP
Hoopy frood
OP Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,547
Quote:

Quitting a server with a message to connect to another one, however, is a use case that I think probably applies to... 5% of cases? Maybe I'm overexaggerating.


Not really, I'm sure there's more than 5% who would like to be able quit and actually have a quit message without using the above in 2 commands.

Quote:

The point here is that if mIRC were to have a switch to execute some vaguely relevant command for every other command, we would have hundreds of switches littering every command-- and then, when mIRC has a *valid* reason to add a switch, the letter code that best suits it would be taken, complicating the interface.


Well, there 52 switches (a-z A-Z) that can be used, and even then I doubt all 52 will be used, it's a possibility but not likely.

Quote:

Maybe in the future, /server -q will stand for "quiet" and hide the *** Notices and MOTD? I think that would be a better meaning for "-q", personally. (this is not a suggestion)


And -q was an example, could be anything.

Re: /server -q [Re: SladeKraven] #197247 31/03/08 09:16 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
"52" is an extremely inflated number, because for any one feature there is only a handful of switches that reasonably describe the functionality, not to mention the fact that upper case letters should be avoided wherever possible since mIRC is case insensitive just about everywhere else.

you wouldn't use "-r" to express a "quit message" in /server the same way you wouldn't use "-z" in /ban to express "kick user". The fact that there are many choices doesn't mean they're valid ones.

In this case, the only possibilities would really be -q (/quit) or -m (quit message).. and oh wait, mIRC already uses -m (and incorrectly). It's simply a bad choice to make mIRC messier than it already is.

As far as my statistic goes-- I'll stick to my number and you stick to yours- realize, however, how uncommon the use case of switching your active server is to begin with.

Sure, people switch servers occasionally, but it would happen maybe once a session. The far more likely scenario is that users setup their server connections on start and leave them until they close mIRC. If anything a user will *add* a connection (with -m) rather than replace it-- and of those few users who replace a connection, there is an even smaller amount of people who actually care about their quit messages. So no, I think 5% is pretty accurate for a guesstimation.

And for those people:

Code:
alias switch quit $2- | server $1


is really not such an inconvenience.


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Re: /server -q [Re: argv0] #197248 31/03/08 09:34 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,547
S
SladeKraven Offline OP
Hoopy frood
OP Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,547
Quote:

In this case, the only possibilities would really be -q (/quit) or -m (quit message).. and oh wait, mIRC already uses -m (and incorrectly). It's simply a bad choice to make mIRC messier than it already is.


There are many commands in mIRC where switches are used, and you'd think they'd be the most obvious switches to use. Not sure if it's because the "common" switches had already been used and Khaled threw in any old switch, I'm not saying all of them have no relevance but some have none.

Have you ever used a switch in any command without reading the help file or forgetting the switch and used something else because you thought that'd be the most obvious. I know I have.

Well for me, I hardly ever have more than one connection open at any time and I am constantly switching servers.

Like I said and I've seen it is easy to do, and even with all the rest in the /server command such as port password nick ident etc and I guess I'll have to stick to that.

Sorry if I sounded rude I didn't mean to sound it. smile

Re: /server -q [Re: SladeKraven] #197249 31/03/08 09:41 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
Quote:

There are many commands in mIRC where switches are used, and you'd think they'd be the most obvious switches to use. Not sure if it's because the "common" switches had already been used and Khaled threw in any old switch, I'm not saying all of them have no relevance but some have none.

Have you ever used a switch in any command without reading the help file or forgetting the switch and used something else because you thought that'd be the most obvious. I know I have.


This is exactly my point. Switches should be intuitive and relevant otherwise they create a mess both in the help file and in trying to use them. Given that statement, where does a feature like this stand?


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Re: /server -q [Re: argv0] #197250 31/03/08 09:53 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,547
S
SladeKraven Offline OP
Hoopy frood
OP Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,547
Well off hand without going back through all the commands it's hard to say but there was a few, there was one I tried cause I thought it'd be the obvious choice can't remember which one now though.

It's probably just me but I don't see any relevance with the -g switch in icons in /did it's probably because i,c, and o was taken and without looking in version history. I'll keep looking and get back to ya.

Re: /server -q [Re: SladeKraven] #197251 31/03/08 10:05 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,022
R
RoCk Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
R
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,022

Originally Posted By: SladeKraven

I'll keep looking and get back to ya.


The -n switch for minimizing windows. Using n for minutes in time format.

Actually I thought /ban -k was an excellent example of uneccesarily combining commands. Banning and kicking worked just fine without it but it was added. Honestly I couldn't see myself using this -q switch, but it's available and it fits so why not?

Re: /server -q [Re: SladeKraven] #197252 31/03/08 10:21 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
Quote:
it's probably because i,c, and o was taken


That's probably right. Again, adding -q will only cause more of these problems in the future. At least, however, -i, -c and -o make more sense for their current purpose than for setting an icon. Imagine what would happen if the icon behaviour was added first.. -g would be for "inserting lines"? Wouldn't get any more unintuitive than that.

We have the same problem here.. bringing back my previous example, how is -q any more suited for "quit message" than for "quiet", which already has precedent with echo -q, raw -q, etc...

But in the end, it's not really about which letter is used for the switch, but about the fact that it's really not common enough a use case to really deserve a letter at all-- in my opinion, anyway.



- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Re: /server -q [Re: RoCk] #197253 31/03/08 10:24 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,330
Riamus2 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,330
Personally, I don't think additional switches should be added just to avoid typing one extra command. There really isn't a good enough reason to justify it. Simply put, if you can't type one extra command or make the alias that does it for you, you're just being lazy.

As far as the choice of letter for the switches... I think it would be better to have the switch make sense, but it isn't imperative. As far as -m in /server, it could be because it was added for multiserver functionality. And -n to minimize isn't that unusual. I can't think of specific locations, but I'm pretty sure I've seen other apps use "n" to Minimize the app from a Window menu (the underlined letter that you can hit from within the menu). That's the same for Maximize. So those aren't really the best examples... not that it really matters. You can't cover every possible switch using just the best letter because you'll often have multiple commands/switches that would be best with the same letter. It's ideal, but not always possible. And, as was mentioned, -q was an example and wasn't meant to be the only choice or the best choice for the switch.

EDIT: Ok, you can actually use "n" and "x" in IE if you right click on the titlebar. This is also probably true in most Windows apps. I tested it in IE and Windows Explorer. So it's commonly used for Minimize and Maximize.

Last edited by Riamus2; 31/03/08 10:25 PM.

Invision Support
#Invision on irc.irchighway.net
Re: /server -q [Re: Riamus2] #197254 31/03/08 10:28 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
I agree, I think the discussion of the actual letter itself detracts a little from my actual point about justification for the switch in general. I don't really care which letter is used, it's just a small point to consider aside from the real issue which you described (more eloquently than me).


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"