These were just three ideas on how the idea "might" be used that came to mind when I read your post. I didn't mean to imply that they were the only ones, nor even very good ones. They are, however, real-world examples.Scenario 1
I see this almost everday by people who are busy intensely scripting something. They are busy coding away and can't quite "get" something, pop into #mIRC or #HelpDesk (on DALnet) to ask a quick question and then happily go back to writing their script that solves world hunger and has great lemonade to boot.
see people who rejoin because they lost the answer given them when their clipboard copy failed to capture the answer and/or they parted too fast as someone answered it. Not everyone logs every window, I know I certainly don't.Scenario 2
Yes, the key issue is quite probably irrelevant since the key could just as easily have been changed in the interim. But thank you for objecting to that one minor subpoint so profusely and ignoring the rest. /clear, in this scenario, is irrelavent because it differs completely from the point of the first scenario where the buffer content is important. The point of this scenario is that a user is joining to see if it's yet possible to chat in that channel (based on how many lines are flying by), not what is being said, by whom or who all is in the channel.
You assume that they (or their script) have not blocked all those ugly /NAMES replies already...and you would be wrong; some scripts I know of, including a few of my own add-ons I have written at the special request of the people who hated to see that cluttering up their status window, hide the /NAMES reply.
Why must you insist that everyone do as you do, or would do, in any given situation? I realize that you know quite a bit about how mIRC works, where to go to change this setting or that setting; I also realize that all of this can, in fact, be scripted and have done so myself in the past. But Jane-Doe and NewUser don't necessarily know these things, nor can we possibly educate the entire mIRC-using public about every option available to them.
If you spend any time at all in any mIRC-related help channel, you will know that 95% of the users that come in to ask a question have not first availed themselves of /help. The other 5% did read it, but didn't understand it for one reason or another. So how would they know to change which options and where, or even why they would need to do so? (The new-to-average user, not a power user.)
You do not know that this scenario is not one that could quite easily arise from JohnNewbie. You do not think
it can, perhaps. I can quite easily see it happening, and not just for a new user.Scenario 3
On the servers that I have opered on, -A users cannot see +s channels, not with /who or /names and not in /whois nor in /list. Perhaps everyone who opers on your ircd can do so; I wouldn't know, I've never read your ircd. I see no need whatever to explain this one to you. If you can't see its use for an oper, then I rather suspect you don't actively oper anywhere. Even small networks have need for certain teams that could find this sort of thing beneficial. I don't think I need say anymore on that score.
Yes, I quite agree. You really don't see, or perhaps don't want to see; this is frequently the case. It seems that when you cannot see a use for a new suggested feature in your own terms, you automatically assume that everyone else falls into the same category as you and therefore thinks the same way you do. I would venture to suggest that you would indeed find uses for it, should it be added. I would also venture to suggest that there are a lot of others that would find life just a little simpler if you could keep the channel open. Why else do you think this has been mentioned or suggested so many times?
We cannot possibly envision the possibilities it could bring about. Relatively simple small changes have drastically changed the way we carry out our day-to-day mIRC lives; the evolution of my own use of mIRC has been interesting to follow. Just venturing a guess, I would imagine that I will indeed have a use for this (preferably if the nicklist could remain intact as well). Users have gotten used to [X]Keep channels open
when disconnected or kicked. This is simply the logical next step in that chain of evolutions.
Of the three scenarios I posited, I might use the second and third scenarios (with the aforementioned nicklist caveat). That, to my way of thinking, is sufficiently real world for me. I probably wouldn't use the first one because that simply doesn't fit in with the way that I have gotten used to IRCing.