[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: private responses
- Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 00:41:16 -0600
- From: David Blache <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: private responses
on 12/9/99 12:13 AM, email@example.com wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 08:25:50PM -0600, David Blache wrote:
>> on 12/7/99 8:29 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 08:03:10PM -0600, David Blache wrote:
>>>> Infobot's behavior right now is to always list the entire factoid
>>>> when the factoid is invoked via a private message. I would much rather
>>>> private messages invoke the same responses as public messages in general.
>>> How do you propose to handle the case when someone asks the bot
>>> "literal foo?" /dcc query?
>> literal foo? I'm not sure I know what "literal foo" is. Please explain?
> Say we have a factoid with multiple entries (multoid? :) separated
> by pipes. When someone queries the bot for "literal <factoid>" the
> bot gives them *all* of the text for that factoid. So how is "literal
> <factoid>" to be responded when the literal factoid may be *really* long?
> -> *purl* tpop quote
> *purl* tpop quote is <reply>"C and friends present pernicious precedence
> -> *purl* literal tpop quote
> *purl* PerlJam: tpop quote =is= <reply>"clarity is often achieved through
> +brevity" |<reply>"Good code needs fewer comments than bad
> code"|<reply>"C and friends present pernicious precedence problems"
> Now, if each of those alternatives were as long as the maximum factoid
> length, we'd have a really long answer to "literal tpop quote". How
> do you propose to handle this?
stick whatever overflows into another msg...you could even be smart about it
and stop one factoid before the cutoff so that no factoids are cut off in
the middle of a msg.