On Tue, 4 May 2004, bas wrote:
> "To do so, it uses numeric 345:
>
> : has been invited by "
>
> shouldnt it have been a more parseable syntax?
I agree.. this smells of the old 'is logged in as' debate..
Make it 345:has been invited by
?
GK
"To do so, it uses numeric 345:
: has been invited by "
shouldnt it have been a more parseable syntax?
-beware
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 31 Dec 2002 7:58 pm, bas wrote:
> if doing an invite to an invalid channel name, there is no "no such
> channel" reply.
> is this intended?
Yes.
- --
Chris "_Shad0w_" Crowther
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
oper @ London.UK.EU.Undernet.Org
ht
Why wouldn't that be intentional? what's the point of checking whether the
chanel can exist?
net
- Original Message -
From: "bas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 2:58 PM
Subject: [Coder-Com] invite
> if do
if doing an invite to an invalid channel name, there is no "no such
channel" reply.
is this intended?
> >From: "Dennis Masselink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: [User-Com] Question
> >Hello,
> >
> >I'm in the process of seting up a chatbox on a website using a java
applet
> >called Jpilot. So far this looks great and has worked like a charm for
me,
> >but when we start
