Re: Re: linesep char

On Monday, Apr 19, 2004, will guaraldi writes:
>
>Oh--oops.  I didn't mean to be a jerk or anything.  I'm just saying I've
>got too much to do, this has been on the wishlist for a long time and I
>haven't done it yet--it's the sort of thing that has fallen by the
>wayside.

No wories, no offense taken :)  That's the way open source works... if
everyone scratches their own itches, eventually everything gets taken
care of.  The current behavior bugs me because I'm not used to having
to escape ;'s in the course of normal output, so I'm more than willing
to put in the effort to fix it.

>Mmm...  configuring the escape character as well gets a bit messy.  I've
>had both camps yell at me for this.  One camp wants to be able to
>configure things like whatever client they used before.  The other camp
>wants Lyntin to be smaller and less bloated and they don't really care
>about configuration.

So maybe some kind of compatibility matrix is in order?  I've only ever
used emacs and tf as mudclients... Hrm.  Maybe the real Right Thing (which
probably has to wait until 5.0) is to make it all modular, so you just
choose the right set of modules to do your filtering and you can get whatever
behaviour you want.   Oh, and that's something else for 5.x - a way to
configure which modules get loaded instead of blindly loading everything
in your modules dir. (though I guess _* modules work this way now)

>I would say hold off on configuring the escape character--that's a big
>project which involves more than just a patch.  I'd just fix the
>SEMI_REGEXP so that it's configurable with the default being to use ; as
>the command separator.
>
>The command char is configurable--I would look at that and see if you
>can't do something similar.

Hrm, yah, this looks like a can of worms; I may just hold out for the 5.x
redesign.

Speaking of 'configurable'... did you ever get a chance to figure out
what you can and can't set from the .ini file vs. having to use the
readfile?

  --pj

>
>
>On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Paul Jimenez wrote:
>>
>> Okay, hint taken :)  Now, if one were to rewrite this, what would be the
>> right way to rewrite it?  One way would be to allow configuring of just
>> the linesep character(s).  Another would be to allow configuration of
>> not the linesep character, but instead of the *escape* character, and hardcode
>> the linesep character to '<escapechar>;', and a literal <escapechar> as
>> <escapechar><escapechar>. \, %, and $ are all popular escape chars.
>>
>> So what opinions do people have?
>>
>>   --pj
>>
>> On Monday, Apr 19, 2004, will guaraldi writes:
>> >
>> >It's been on the wishlist for a year or more, but it's not really in my
>> >priority list.  I think the only way it will get done is for someone to
>> >send in a patch.
>> >
>> >So if someone is interested in working through this, then the chances of
>> >this thing being made configurable are very high.  Possibly even for 4.1.
>> >Otherwise, the chances are very low that it'll get fixed in the forseeable
>> >future.
>> >
>> >/will
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
>Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
>GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
>administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click
>_______________________________________________
>Lyntin-devl mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lyntin-devl
>


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click