Braden Temme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You are missing the point. The point isn't whether they are hard to enforce but the >ability of us > to use them. There should of been an Fline created for them enabling or disabling >them. They > shouldn't of ripped them out of the code altogether. Entropy, if you had a problem >with them, > then you should be able to disable them with a function :cP It would be a nice >feature.
I did not miss the point at all. Modeless channels offer a subset of the functionality available in normal but opless channels -- the notable exception is that no one can remove users from particular modeless channels. They make syntax ambiguous. For example, NOTICE @#channel is clear, but NOTICE +#channel is ambiguous, and users have asked me if it could mean "send message to voiced and oped users on #channel". I was not the one who removed the support from the code, or who suggested it; but I do agree with the decision. As long as the ircd supports it as an optional feature, it should recognize the syntax and issue warnings when the feature is disabled; and that perpetuates the ambiguities and restricts useful new features. In short, I have not seen a single benefit to keeping modeless channels, although I have seen several problems. Can you name one (useful) thing users can do with a modeless channel that they cannot do with an opless channel? Entrope (P.S. It is polite to cc the author when replying to the list, or vice versa, or to send only to the list, rather than sending the same email to the list and poster separately.)
