mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
'Current alias' - identifier #212072 10/05/09 08:59 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 162
R
RRX Offline OP
Vogon poet
OP Offline
Vogon poet
R
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 162
When having bigger scripts, organisation becomes more important, aliases get prefixes in their names and are grouped according to those prefixes (and thus script part/feature), and the amount reusable code (aliases called from everywhere (across script parts/features) increases.

These latter reusable-code-aliases play a keyrole in debugging and error reporting, because they allow to centralize debugging/error reporting code (similar to the reusability of them).
In this aspect, it's a pity that there is nothing there that refers to the place these aliases are called from.
And in the other direction, there is no such thing as an identifier that returns the name of the alias the code belongs too.
I find this a major shortcoming.
Abit similar to not having a $sockname in a socket event and thus being forced to hardcode the socket name in the socket events codes.
The only current way (that I know of) to do this is:
Code:
alias blabla_blabla {
if ($insufparscheckaliasname(blabla_blabla,8,$1-)) { return }
...
}

Notice how the blabla_blabla occurs twice here.

It would be handy to have some identifier in an alias that returns the name of the called alias (maybe $calias - similar to $ctimer) AND/OR another identifier that returns the name of the alias the code belongs to.
That would eliminate all the hardcoding.

That identifier should be 'local', similar to /var local variables and $1-, in opposite to most identifiers like $filtered $v1 etc since those can be altered by called code. This might be something 'special' in mIRC and thus harder to implement.

Last edited by RRX; 10/05/09 09:00 AM.
Re: 'Current alias' - identifier [Re: RRX] #212073 10/05/09 10:10 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
Helpful as this may be, I'm not sure I see the duplication of one extra word as a "major" shortcoming. The difference between a hypothetical $calias and $ctimer/$sockname is that the latter two can be specified to have dynamic names-- aliases cannot, so "hardcoding the name" is really no more hardcoded than it already is. In any case, this seems more like a band-aid on a much greater problem you've alluded to with your example, that problem being the weak state of error handling support in mIRC.

The concept of DRY is more about keeping away from having to repeat code indefinitely. Deciding between writing something exactly once versus exactly twice is not exactly a serious concern to most people. To follow through with your example, the duplication of the term "blabla_blabla" would only become a point of contention if you were to rename the alias name altogether. Of course, most likely if you renamed an alias you would be spending far more time searching through code finding references to the call as compared to the one extra change inside the alias body (the one you're most likely to see). Having this one extra duplication, as annoying as it may seem, is actually not all that error prone. Using your suggested $calias identifier, the example would turn into:

Code:
alias bl_alias1 {
  if ($insufparscheckaliasname($calias,8,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
alias bl_alias2 {
  if ($insufparscheckaliasname($calias,8,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
alias bl_alias3 {
  if ($insufparscheckaliasname($calias,8,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
...

In the end, if we scale the example up, it doesn't really look all that much cleaner from the original example. As you can see, the real eye-sore is that check to begin with, and we still have a lot of repeated code. This is where I start failing to see the benefit of the suggested identifier. You either duplicate a line with a different alias name, or you duplicate the entire line, but really in both cases you're still duplicating the entire line. You could almost say that having to write out the alias name almost justifies the duplication of that error checking line, though I won't take it that far.

If anything, the lack of proper error handling (the likes of try/catch and throw) is the real "major" central issue that makes this a problem to begin with. As I mentioned, you alluded to this issue, which is the real issue in this suggestion. Adding $calias really just covers up the need for something like "/throw error details here" (adding an optional error message param to /halt would be even easier to implement) and having mIRC show this to the user in a consistent fashion (automatically including the alias name on its own).

I should add, by the way, that off the top of my head I can think of no languages that actually have such a "current alias" functionality. Although that's no justification against any feature, the fact that there are highly dynamic languages with no need for the current alias/method name is a relatively good indicator of what the problem really is.


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Re: 'Current alias' - identifier [Re: argv0] #212075 10/05/09 11:15 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 162
R
RRX Offline OP
Vogon poet
OP Offline
Vogon poet
R
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 162
Originally Posted By: argv0
Helpful as this may be, I'm not sure I see the duplication of one extra word as a "major" shortcoming. The difference between a hypothetical $calias and $ctimer/$sockname is that the latter two can be specified to have dynamic names-- aliases cannot, so "hardcoding the name" is really no more hardcoded than it already is. In any case, this seems more like a band-aid on a much greater problem you've alluded to with your example, that problem being the weak state of error handling support in mIRC.

The concept of DRY is more about keeping away from having to repeat code indefinitely. Deciding between writing something exactly once versus exactly twice is not exactly a serious concern to most people. To follow through with your example, the duplication of the term "blabla_blabla" would only become a point of contention if you were to rename the alias name altogether. Of course, most likely if you renamed an alias you would be spending far more time searching through code finding references to the call as compared to the one extra change inside the alias body (the one you're most likely to see). Having this one extra duplication, as annoying as it may seem, is actually not all that error prone. Using your suggested $calias identifier, the example would turn into:

Code:
alias bl_alias1 {
  if ($insufparscheckaliasname($calias,8,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
alias bl_alias2 {
  if ($insufparscheckaliasname($calias,8,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
alias bl_alias3 {
  if ($insufparscheckaliasname($calias,8,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
...

In the end, if we scale the example up, it doesn't really look all that much cleaner from the original example. As you can see, the real eye-sore is that check to begin with, and we still have a lot of repeated code. This is where I start failing to see the benefit of the suggested identifier. You either duplicate a line with a different alias name, or you duplicate the entire line, but really in both cases you're still duplicating the entire line. You could almost say that having to write out the alias name almost justifies the duplication of that error checking line, though I won't take it that far.

'Cleaner code'?
Did I say that the purpose of this feature request was 'cleaner code' as in 'cosmetics'?
No.
You seem to have missed what I ment.
I will try explaining again.
The purpose is to have less code writing/debugging/code maintaining work.
Code:
alias blacklist_add {
  if ($pcc($calias,6,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
alias blacklist_remove {
  if ($pcc($calias,3,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
alias serverlist_add {
  if ($pcc($calias,7,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
alias serverlist_get {
  if ($pcc($calias,4,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
...

compared to
Code:
alias blacklist_add {
  if ($pcc(blacklist_add,6,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
alias blacklist_remove {
  if ($pcc(blacklist_remove,3,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
alias serverlist_add {
  if ($pcc(serverlist_add,7,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
alias serverlist_get {
  if ($pcc(serverlist_get,4,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
...


If I have to write a new alias, I can copy an existing line and only need to change the number of required parameters.
And this is not 'repeated code' as such, this is a location-bound (every alias has its own amount needed parameters) condition that checks an identifier. Repeated code is code that isn't location bound, so can be moved to an alias that is given parameters representing the location bound remainder.

That's why I proposed an identifier returning the aliasname the code belongs to, or even better, an identifier (like $ctimer) that on the called place that returns the name of the alias that called it.
Then it looks like this:
Code:
alias blacklist_add {
  if ($pcc(6,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
alias blacklist_remove {
  if ($pcc(3,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}

alias serverlist_add {
  if ($pcc(7,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
alias serverlist_get {
  if ($pcc(4,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}
...

and
Code:
alias pcc {
  if ($1 <= $numtok($2-,32)) { return 0 }
  RE InsufficiŽnt $+($v2,/,$1) parameters passed to alias $calias
  return 1
}


Last edited by RRX; 10/05/09 11:18 AM.
Re: 'Current alias' - identifier [Re: RRX] #212089 10/05/09 09:12 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
Then what you're suggesting clearly cannot work.

$calias inside pcc would return pcc, not the callee. If you wanted it to return only the callee, then you could not do error checking inside the alias itself, for instance:

Code:
alias bl_alias1 { 
  if ($1- == $null) { echo -a * $calias $+ : insufficient parameters. | return }
  ...
}


Instead you would require all error checking to be done in an alias directly called by the alias in question, which ends up being more limiting than it is helpful.

I assume in response to this situation you would suggest that we should have two separate identifiers, $calias and $callee for the two situations... but then what about a scripter who might write the above as:

Code:
alias bl_alias1 { pcc 3 | ... }
alias pcc { 
  if ($0 < $1) error_insufficient_params 
  if ($1 == ...) error_invalid_params
}
alias error_insufficient_params {
  echo $color(info) -a * $callee $+ : insufficient parameters
}
alias error_invalid_params {
  echo $color(info) -a * $callee $+ : invalid parameters
}


Clearly you end up with a case where arbitrary levels of "callee" indirection are needed depending on the level of organization a scripter would use. What you're suggesting is helpful to your specific script organization, not that of other scripters. Of course, again, this is solved by using proper stack traces as per standard try/catch exception handling, which is really what you're alluding to here.

As far as the "less code" argument goes, you're not writing "less" code:

Code:
alias c1 {
  if ($somecheck(c1,3)) return
}


is technically "less code" than the equivalent with $calias.

As I mentioned in the first reply, maintainability is really insignificant in this situation. When you change the alias name you'll be doing more work fixing the calls to the alias than fixing the one extra reference inside the alias body. You also generally don't rename aliases often to begin with.

Given that the only benefit from knowing the alias name is for the one situation where a scripter performs error reporting, it seems to me that this is really more about the error reporting than the alias name itself.


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Re: 'Current alias' - identifier [Re: argv0] #212397 21/05/09 08:31 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 162
R
RRX Offline OP
Vogon poet
OP Offline
Vogon poet
R
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 162
Originally Posted By: argv0
Then what you're suggesting clearly cannot work.

$calias inside pcc would return pcc, not the callee. If you wanted it to return only the callee, then you could not do error checking inside the alias itself, for instance:

Code:
alias bl_alias1 { 
  if ($1- == $null) { echo -a * $calias $+ : insufficient parameters. | return }
  ...
}


Instead you would require all error checking to be done in an alias directly called by the alias in question, which ends up being more limiting than it is helpful.

Do you refuse to read what I do say or so?
Code:
alias blacklist_add {
  if ($pcc($calias,6,$1-)) { return }
  ...
}

Notice how $calias replaces the hardcoded name 'blacklist_add' of the alias here.
Where do you see your "$calias inside pcc" ?
$calias is used inside the code of alias blacklist_add.
Then I can copy this line to another alias of this blacklist_* set without having to change anything but the required number of blacklist_add - parameters in the second parameter of $pcc()
This is what is in the title of my feature suggestion: 'Current alias' - identifier
That's ONE.

Originally Posted By: argv0

I assume in response to this situation you would suggest that we should have two separate identifiers, $calias and $callee for the two situations... but then what about a scripter who might write the above as:

That two separate identifiers was already suggested in my openingpost. Care to read?
Quote:

It would be handy to have some identifier in an alias that returns the name of the called alias (maybe $calias - similar to $ctimer) AND/OR another identifier that returns the name of the alias the code belongs to.
That would eliminate all the hardcoding.

Regarding which name for which of the two, is a matter of choice, not a matter of feature suggestion ok or not ok. the 'c' in $calias can refer to both 'current' and 'called' so maybe (as said) $calias for the called from aliasname (similar to $ctimer) and $nalias for the name of the alias the code belongs to, I'd find just $alias better similar to $sockname $script etc but its already used.

Originally Posted By: argv0

Code:
alias bl_alias1 { pcc 3 | ... }
alias pcc { 
  if ($0 < $1) error_insufficient_params 
  if ($1 == ...) error_invalid_params
}
alias error_insufficient_params {
  echo $color(info) -a * $callee $+ : insufficient parameters
}
alias error_invalid_params {
  echo $color(info) -a * $callee $+ : invalid parameters
}


Clearly you end up with a case where arbitrary levels of "callee" indirection are needed depending on the level of organization a scripter would use. What you're suggesting is helpful to your specific script organization, not that of other scripters. Of course, again, this is solved by using proper stack traces as per standard try/catch exception handling, which is really what you're alluding to here.

As far as the "less code" argument goes, you're not writing "less" code:

Code:
alias c1 {
  if ($somecheck(c1,3)) return
}


is technically "less code" than the equivalent with $calias.

As I mentioned in the first reply, maintainability is really insignificant in this situation. When you change the alias name you'll be doing more work fixing the calls to the alias than fixing the one extra reference inside the alias body. You also generally don't rename aliases often to begin with.

Given that the only benefit from knowing the alias name is for the one situation where a scripter performs error reporting, it seems to me that this is really more about the error reporting than the alias name itself.

You obviously endup wherever you want regardless of what I do say. In my example I used one alias named 'pcc' (Parameter Count Check) to report insufficient parameters errors for the whole script, to save every individual alias from having the reporting code and also to have one editing place to adjust it (hurah for reusing code and less work!), and what do you do: you let that one single place/alias on its turn call other aliases to report besides insufficient pars also invalid pars, in order to bring up a 'problem' with my feature suggestion. That's TWO.
Notice how you constantly move away of what I said?



Last edited by RRX; 21/05/09 08:34 PM.
Re: 'Current alias' - identifier [Re: RRX] #212415 22/05/09 03:22 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
What you don't seem to realize is that your suggested identifiers do *not* eliminate all hardcoding in all cases, only in the specific scenario you brought up. If you pay attention to the example that you conveniently omitted in my quote, you would notice that you would need a 3rd level indirection of callee to implement it, making your suggestion limited only to examples you personally use (your code is not how I would implement error handling at all and those proposed identifiers would be completely useless to me).

You also have yet to address the fact that "hardcoding" is really not as serious an inconvenience as you suggest it is. In fact as I've pointed out, you only type the name once per alias-- that's exactly once more than you normally would (the "alias MYNAME" declaration) instead of the one more time you would otherwise type $calias. This, again, is only limited to aliases, and then further limited to those exposed to your users, making it, imho, a small subset of any real-world script. In fact, I bet the total word count of your posts greatly exceeds the number of times all of your hardcoded alias names appear in all of your scripts.

You have also yet to address the fact that this really hides the underlying issue here, which is error checking. This is my major concern. Error checking seems to be the only usage you have for such an alias, or at least I can personally think of no other serious uses for the current alias name. If you have another example, please share. Otherwise, if your suggestion for $calias is only to make the one use case of error checking better, there are better ways to do that. Better ways that do not include hacking on an extra alias that only makes dealing with errors marginally better in the one use case where you need to /echo the alias name out to a user.


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Re: 'Current alias' - identifier [Re: argv0] #212479 24/05/09 12:47 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 162
R
RRX Offline OP
Vogon poet
OP Offline
Vogon poet
R
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 162
Originally Posted By: argv0
What you don't seem to realize is that your suggested identifiers do *not* eliminate all hardcoding in all cases, only in the specific scenario you brought up.

'Eliminate all hardcoding in all cases' is an ideal situation.
What do you state here then: that my suggestion is not good because it wouldn't achieve the ideal situation.
Should I help you realize what you do here?
It's like stating that buckets shouldnt be there because the availability of buckets doesn't guarantee that the fire gets suppressed.
Look at the non-sense level you exhibit here.
Because a proposal makes a sitation 'only' better, and not 'ideal', the proposal should be digged.

Also, be free to call any situation you want 'specific', lol.
If you bang on my door yelling that your house is on fire, I'll say "sorry your situation is too specific" and I'll slam the door in closed position.

Originally Posted By: argv0

If you pay attention to the example that you conveniently omitted in my quote,

Oh sorry!
Did I?
That's very possible!
I quoted what I said earlier in the hope to bring you on the path of the things I DID say.

Originally Posted By: argv0

you would notice that you would need a 3rd level indirection of callee to implement it, making your suggestion limited only to examples you personally use (your code is not how I would implement error handling at all and those proposed identifiers would be completely useless to me).

Hey!
Don't panic!
In case Mister Khaled would add my proposal(s)...
... I won't force you to use them!
I let you the freedom to do the things like you want them to do!
Nice of me, isn't it?

Originally Posted By: argv0

You also have yet to address the fact that "hardcoding" is really not as serious an inconvenience as you suggest it is. In fact as I've pointed out, you only type the name once per alias-- that's exactly once more than you normally would (the "alias MYNAME" declaration) instead of the one more time you would otherwise type $calias. This, again, is only limited to aliases, and then further limited to those exposed to your users, making it, imho, a small subset of any real-world script. In fact, I bet the total word count of your posts greatly exceeds the number of times all of your hardcoded alias names appear in all of your scripts.

The critic that my suggestion is ONLY limited to aliases.
What a drawback!
I'm too specific again!
The scripts that use aliases are RARE?

And then, you limit the application range even further (wow!), only aliases EXPOSED to users of MY script?
"A SMALL SUB-set", etcetera.

This is a bunch wet-thumb-using-pseudo-argumentation.

I see benefit of what I suggested.
Of course.
Otherwise I wouldn't suggest it.
While working further on a script, I regularly realize that I'm writing something that is similar to code written earlier.
Then I look and compare.
Then I either add a new alias with the common code + pass the differences as parameters, either just copy the earlier written code and edit it according to the new place.
The more is hardcoded, the more editing work I have on the new place.
My suggestion is comparable to a situation where $sockname in a socket event isn't available, inflicting me to hardcode it, inflicting me to edit it when I copy the code elsewhere.
Now, with $sockname, I can do:
if ($sockerr) { echo -s $sock($sockname).wsmsg | return }
Without $sockname, I have to do:
if ($sockerr) { echo -s $sock(mysocketname).wsmsg | return }
The first I can copy to another socket event without any edit.
The latter needs an edit of mysocketname.

That's why.
Is this new to you?
No.
I said it earlier.
You 'reacted' on a customized version of it (thus on yourself).
Then I gave an example.
And again you customized it first then react (my alias suddenly called another alias).
In short, you insert problems yourself, then insinuate they're mine by pretending to 'react' on me.

Originally Posted By: argv0

You have also yet to address the fact that this really hides the underlying issue here, which is error checking. This is my major concern. Error checking seems to be the only usage you have for such an alias, or at least I can personally think of no other serious uses for the current alias name. If you have another example, please share. Otherwise, if your suggestion for $calias is only to make the one use case of error checking better, there are better ways to do that. Better ways that do not include hacking on an extra alias that only makes dealing with errors marginally better in the one use case where you need to /echo the alias name out to a user.

Look again at the pseudo argumentation.
'no serious use'
'too specific ('one' in italic)
'marginally better'.
Lol.




Re: 'Current alias' - identifier [Re: RRX] #212491 24/05/09 10:56 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
You seemed to have completely missed the point of my responses. I won't bother to re-explain them since you seem overly defensive of your proposal, though I'm glad you at least admit it would only benefit you. I would start suggesting half-solutions to problems only *I* encounter too, but I have better things to do than bug Khaled over my own laziness.


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Re: 'Current alias' - identifier [Re: argv0] #212573 27/05/09 12:31 AM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 72
P
PhireCoder Offline
Babel fish
Offline
Babel fish
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 72
Quote:
I should add, by the way, that off the top of my head I can think of no languages that actually have such a "current alias" functionality. Although that's no justification against any feature, the fact that there are highly dynamic languages with no need for the current alias/method name is a relatively good indicator of what the problem really is.


Being said by someone with the nickname "argv[0]"... how ironic... and yes main() is a function/method/alias or whatever you want to call it.

For those unfamiliar with c programming... argv[0] is a "current alias" functionality for the name of the called function (A.K.A. alias) but only for main() but still lol.

BTW I'm not pro or con for the feature just bein silly.


mIRC Scripting: So easy a caveman could do it.
Re: 'Current alias' - identifier [Re: argv0] #212664 30/05/09 01:29 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 162
R
RRX Offline OP
Vogon poet
OP Offline
Vogon poet
R
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 162
Originally Posted By: argv0
You seemed to have completely missed the point of my responses.

That's a funny statement from someone that 'responds' to himself.
I really can't help that you 'responds' to things I did not say.

Originally Posted By: argv0

I won't bother to re-explain them since you seem overly defensive of your proposal,

Defensive?
How's that?
I tried to bring you on the path of things I did say, in order to have an arguementation between two people instead of one.

Originally Posted By: argv0

though I'm glad you at least admit it would only benefit you.

Where did you read that again? Can you quote this or should I buy the book 'Things I said', by argv0?

Originally Posted By: argv0

I would start suggesting half-solutions to problems only *I* encounter too, but I have better things to do than bug Khaled over my own laziness.

Sure you have better things to do?
Because it doesn't seem so, lol.
This is mIRC's forum, this is the suggestions section of it and I have a suggestion. Nobody forces you to agree, and as reminder, you're not Khaled, I clicked on your nose and nothing happened.

Re: 'Current alias' - identifier [Re: RRX] #212670 30/05/09 09:22 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
Quote:
Where did you read that again?


Quote:
In case Mister Khaled would add my proposal(s)...
... I won't force you to use them!


1. They aren't "your" features and they are not "your" proposals (though I can see why being possessive makes you act so defensive). It *should* therefore matter that other users don't find a suggestion as helpful as it could be. You should be interested in the idea that best serves the most people, not the least. It *should* therefore matter to you that I don't find your suggestion useful in a number of scenarios which I highlighted for you. Your suggestion does not deal with these issues. I suggested a more generalized solution that is more helpful to a broader range of the community, unless you'd like to debate this fact (though you haven't). Instead, you seem to think that an ideal solution is not worth implementing. You wouldn't rather have the ideal solution? The solution that pleases more people? Or are you seriously just interested in pleasing yourself?

2. You should have the sense to realize it's not your suggestion or bust. There is such a thing as iterating on feature suggestions and making good ideas better. Perhaps you haven't realized this, in which case I guess I can't blame your ignorance. Instead I'll inform you: other people on a feature suggestion forum do have the right to point out flaws in your suggestion and give ideas on how to improve it. I guess now you know how these things work.

I've until now stayed away from commenting on your etiquette, but I'll say one thing now and I'll say it once: your erratic use of language, rude demeanor and personal attacks are turning this thread into a lose-lose situation for everyone involved (specifically you). Personally speaking, I would love to see better trace information for error reporting (something akin to try catch) that would solve your problem and make many others happy, but this thread has turned into such a mess that I could see how Khaled would disregard it. I highly suggest that you grow up and learn how to have a civilized discussion without bringing your personal frustrations into it. You're free to think what you want of me (I honestly could care less), but your passive aggressive attitude is neither welcome nor conducive to these forums. Discuss the issues I've raised (you have yet to do so), not semantics about the words I've use. The fact that you've called this an "argument" is telling that you're on the wrong track.


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Re: 'Current alias' - identifier [Re: RRX] #212693 30/05/09 06:27 PM
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 40
H
HadS Offline
Ameglian cow
Offline
Ameglian cow
H
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 40
Yes good idea wink

May be helpful for building a mIRC Object snippet.

Re: 'Current alias' - identifier [Re: argv0] #212730 31/05/09 04:48 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 162
R
RRX Offline OP
Vogon poet
OP Offline
Vogon poet
R
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 162
Originally Posted By: argv0

1. They aren't "your" features and they are not "your" proposals (though I can see why being possessive makes you act so defensive).

I can see why you aren't able to discuss with someone, all you seem to be able to is changing what the other side in the 'discussion' says, then react on that.
I did not say "my" features. I said "my proposals". I'm the one that suggests this in the 'Feature Suggestions' section of the forum.
How does this make me 'possessive', lol?
And regarding 'defensive', I defend my suggestion. Of course I do. Why wouldn't I defend my own suggestion, lol?

Originally Posted By: argv0

It *should* therefore matter that other users don't find a suggestion as helpful as it could be. You should be interested in the idea that best serves the most people, not the least. It *should* therefore matter to you that I don't find your suggestion useful in a number of scenarios which I highlighted for you. Your suggestion does not deal with these issues. I suggested a more generalized solution that is more helpful to a broader range of the community, unless you'd like to debate this fact (though you haven't).

And HERE you shift again YOUR words in MY mouth:
[quote=argv0]
Instead, you seem to think that an ideal solution is not worth implementing.

And HERE you react on YOURSELF:
Originally Posted By: argv0

You wouldn't rather have the ideal solution? The solution that pleases more people? Or are you seriously just interested in pleasing yourself?


Originally Posted By: argv0

2. You should have the sense to realize it's not your suggestion or bust. There is such a thing as iterating on feature suggestions and making good ideas better. Perhaps you haven't realized this, in which case I guess I can't blame your ignorance. Instead I'll inform you: other people on a feature suggestion forum do have the right to point out flaws in your suggestion and give ideas on how to improve it. I guess now you know how these things work.

Talking about ignorance, argv0, take a mirror, if you react on a modified version of what I said, then you are actually ignoring yourself...

Originally Posted By: argv0

I've until now stayed away from commenting on your etiquette, but I'll say one thing now and I'll say it once: your erratic use of language, rude demeanor and personal attacks are turning this thread into a lose-lose situation for everyone involved (specifically you). Personally speaking, I would love to see better trace information for error reporting (something akin to try catch) that would solve your problem and make many others happy, but this thread has turned into such a mess that I could see how Khaled would disregard it. I highly suggest that you grow up and learn how to have a civilized discussion without bringing your personal frustrations into it. You're free to think what you want of me (I honestly could care less), but your passive aggressive attitude is neither welcome nor conducive to these forums. Discuss the issues I've raised (you have yet to do so), not semantics about the words I've use. The fact that you've called this an "argument" is telling that you're on the wrong track.

Haha, and then the famous 'hit the man instead of the ball'.. 'arguement'.

In fact, this post of you is remarkable, argv0, in the aspect that all the critic you throw to me actually targets yourself, in the same way you also 'reacted' on yourself.
<RRX> A
<argv0> B is bad because blahblahblah
<RRX> You seem to have interpreted wrong, I said A.
<argv0> No you are wrong, B is bad because blahblahblah
<RRX> Why do you react on B when I said A?
<argv0> Since you go personal blahblahblah

A discussion gets funny this way, don't you agree?

Re: 'Current alias' - identifier [Re: RRX] #212749 01/06/09 07:15 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 994
C
CtrlAltDel Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 994
Please do everyone a favor and shut up. This is the Feature Suggestions forum. Make your suggestions, and stop trying to win an argument.


I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person. wink
Re: 'Current alias' - identifier [Re: CtrlAltDel] #212755 01/06/09 09:39 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,511
westor Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,511
any moderator lock this topic! it will be worst in the future..

Re: 'Current alias' - identifier [Re: argv0] #213060 16/06/09 05:20 PM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 236
S
s00p Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
S
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 236
Your error handling is not how I would implement mine, either, and I find try/catch blocks to be useless (in C++) and a cause of many other problems if not used correctly. I find that most people who use try/catch blocks are often just trying to catch general errors to stop their application from crashing.

This isn't a bad idea. In fact, there are examples of shortcuts similar to this throughout mIRC and other languages that you'd no doubt enjoy like PHP. Other examples: C/C++ have function pointers/references, C# has delegates, Java, JavaScript, ... Can they refer to their own functions? sure they can. If they support function inlining and choose to make use of those features, are they going to need to copy/paste/modify previous code 8 or 9 times in a row? Probably not.

Re: 'Current alias' - identifier [Re: s00p] #213205 21/06/09 11:39 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 162
R
RRX Offline OP
Vogon poet
OP Offline
Vogon poet
R
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 162
CtrlAltDel, I've a simple solution: in the future I'll ignore Argv0's 'replies', that's no problem since they aren't actually replies on what I said anyway. The little confusement due to irrelevant 'replies' is only a small drawback compared to having ugly threads like this one on the forum.

In meantime and coincidently, when bringing up the idea, someone on IRC informed me that he also suggested this in the past (I didnt search far enough back):
http://forums.mirc.com/ubbthreads.php?ub...true#Post117678
(2005).
And now that I search the max years back for '$calias', before that was another similar suggestion.