I agree. Original message follows.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:52:18PM +0100, Chris Crowther wrote:
> On Thursday 12 Jun 2003 9:30 pm, you wrote:
>
> > channels should be listed with the channel name clearly shown... and either
> > display the topic, or show "" (or something similiar) in
> > it's
> > How about we drop +p as a separate mode and make it do +s for
> compatibility?
> > --
> > Kevin L. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The most important difference is (or used to be, dunno
if that still works as-is) that when you are on a channel
that is +s then you cannot be found with a wildcard /
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:43:06PM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote:
> The most important difference is (or used to be, dunno
> if that still works as-is) that when you are on a channel
> that is +s then you cannot be found with a wildcard /WHO
> if you'd otherwise have matched. This isn't the case
> when
Agreed. That's exactly what you use it for. As is implies fixing it to
work properly though I'd assume :)
At 10:08 PM 6/12/2003 -0600, Captain Kirk wrote:
I always found +p useful for those who wanted to find the channel, and
weren't just people looking to pester someone. +s hides completely,
> > I can't see a constructive difference between showing the channel names
as
> > Prv and hiding them completly. The only way it would make sense is the
way I
> > stated, otherwise +p and +s become analegous and +p is just there for
> > historical reasons.
>
> How about we drop +p as a separate m
On Thursday 12 Jun 2003 9:55 pm, you wrote:
> How about we drop +p as a separate mode and make it do +s for
> compatibility?
Yeah, or just remove it entirely, people would soon stop using it *g*
--
hikari
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org
> I can't see a constructive difference between showing the channel names as
> Prv and hiding them completly. The only way it would make sense is the way I
> stated, otherwise +p and +s become analegous and +p is just there for
> historical reasons.
How about we drop +p as a separate mode
On Thursday 12 Jun 2003 9:30 pm, you wrote:
> channels should be listed with the channel name clearly shown... and either
> display the topic, or show "" (or something similiar) in
> it's place.
Which is pretty much what I said. +p *should* be visible on /list, but
should be hidden on a
I'd agree 100% The point I was making was that the historical versions of
ircu (2.9) showed them as "*"... at least 2.9.32 did. I would say that +p
channels should be listed with the channel name clearly shown... and either
display the topic, or show "" (or something similiar) in
it's place.
On Thursday 12 Jun 2003 8:25 pm, you wrote:
> Unfortunately for whatever reason this is _not_ the way the current version
> of ircu works. Both +p and +s are totally hidden from /list (it doesn't
> even show a "*" or "Prv" like some older ircd versions did).
I can't see a constructive di
At 18:23 12-06-2003, Tom Rons wrote:
> My view of it was this:
>
> +p does not show in /list at all
> +s shows in /list with channel name as "*" but topic visible
Why do I have the odd feeling that it's acually the other way around? :)
AFAIK +p channels are shown, but without their name (+s not sho
This is what I've always thought as well (though I thought the topics were
supposed to show up as well? I suppose that's a minor detail) and is borne
out in the way that I use +p on my own channels. I use it if I am going
somewhere and I don't want people in that channel to /whois me and follo
According to my look at ircu 2.9.32 (the last version of 2.9) it was the
other way around... except that the topics were also hidden for +ps.
if (cptr->user && !(SecretChannel(chptr) && !IsMember(cptr, chptr)))
{
nr--;
sendto_one(cptr, rpl_str(RPL_LIST), me.name, cptr->name,
Ummm... +p channels were _always_ showed in /list as I recall.
"Secret" implies totally secret -- i.e: you can't find out about it unless
you already know the name.
"Private" implies that your existence on the channel is "private" unless
they already know the name... or if they start /join'ing
> +p does not show in /list at all
> +s shows in /list with channel name as "*" but topic visible
>
are you sure its not the other way around?
> My view of it was this:
>
> +p does not show in /list at all
> +s shows in /list with channel name as "*" but topic visible
Why do I have the odd feeling that it's acually the other way around? :)
AFAIK +p channels are shown, but without their name (+s not shown in
list at all, if you're not on
>
> Although afaic we know longer send "Prv" as the channel name for a Private
> (+p) channel...I don't know if anyone ever did tbh. I believe the
intended
> operation is that Private channels will show up on LIST, without their
topic,
> but membership of the channel is not visible through use of
At 09:28 12-06-2003, you wrote:
On Thursday 12 Jun 2003 5:43 am, Captain Kirk wrote:
[snip /list +s/+p discussion]
My view of it was this:
Both show up on /list if you are in the channel.
Both show up on /whois'ing someone else if you are in the channel.
+p does not show in /list at all
+s shows
On Thursday 12 Jun 2003 5:43 am, Captain Kirk wrote:
> I always thought it was the other way around. If you set +p, the channel
> won't appear in /list but if you whois someone who "is" in the channel it
4.2.6 List Message
"[...] Private channels are listed (without their topics) as chann
>
> I have found what I think is a bug in the /list command. Mainly that +p
> channels do not seem to show up.
>
> It was always my understanding that the major (only?) difference between a
> PRIVATE and a SECRET channel is that PRIVATE channels show up in
> /list. This is the way I have always u
I have found what I think is a bug in the /list command. Mainly that +p
channels do not seem to show up.
It was always my understanding that the major (only?) difference between a
PRIVATE and a SECRET channel is that PRIVATE channels show up in
/list. This is the way I have always used +p...
21 matches
Mail list logo
