I'm in agreement with Jeremy's original proposal. If you have an open /query, /exec -o should most definitely be going there; not doing so is unintuitive, despite "years of common IRC practise".
And before someone proposes it: I also strongly object to a /set variable to define the behaviour of /exec -o with an open /query. Not that my word rules above anyone elses, but such a toggleable defeats my entire argument. Changing this in EPIC5 would be OK, but (if you're still working on it) for EPIC4, leave the old behaviour. -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. | On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 11:57:39AM -0500, Jeremy Nelson wrote: > >On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 10:22 -0500, Jeremy Nelson wrote: > >> This change will mean if you have a channel and a /query in the same > >> window, then /exec -out will send to the query, and not the channel. > > > >Personally, I think you're not really gaining anything by doing this, > >but you are losing something in breaking backwards compatibility. > >Consider that, if you currently want to send /exec to the person you're > >talking to in a query, you need to do /exec -m <querydestination>; with > >the change, if you were talking in a query and wanted output to go to > >the channel, you'd have to do /exec -m <channel> instead of /exec -o. > >Basically, I don't see any net in making the change. > > The way it was explained to me by the person who suggested the change was > that it was unexpected that you can't use /exec -o to dump to a query, > channel or no channel, and if you did have a channel, typing a message > would be sent to the query but /exec -o would be sent to the channel, so > they claimed it was a POLA violation on both counts. I pledged to bring > this matter up for discussion. So I am not trying to persuade you to accept > or reject this proposal, only to get your honest opinion, and I do thank > you for being willing to offer it. =) > > Does anyone else wish to offer their opinion on this before I table it? > > Jeremy > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > List@epicsol.org > http://epicsol.org/mailman/listinfo/list _______________________________________________ List mailing list List@epicsol.org http://epicsol.org/mailman/listinfo/list
