On Sat, 2003-01-18 at 00:37, Jakub Jankowski wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > [...] > > - there aren't many objects, so they could contain extra data > > set by plugins/scripts (especially the perl plugin itself) > > - except for nick object. should it be special case?.. > [...] > > Why you're excluding the nick object? It's the first one I'd like to > have ,,scriptable''. At least few bits/bytes should be available to > scripters. It would help _a_lot_ with person-oriented scripts > (userslists for example). I'm sure it's not only my opinion.
I was mostly thinking that reference counting could be done per-channel rather than per-nick, but I guess that's not really possible unless nick also had a pointer to channel (which would take just as much or more memory than refcounter). > >Internal scripting? The current $vars are quite near scripting > >themselves. Maybe we should have some very simple language to use in > >themes, statusbars and such. > > Yeah, at least basical mathematical operations :-) But it shouldn't be > as powerful as the current perl implementation. IMVHO. Maybe not even math operations. String related operations are the important ones.
