egghelp/eggheads community

Getall nicknames in channel

2012-02-25T01:42:02-04:00

Oups, my bad. Forgot about -1 return when there's nothing to be scanned.
About:

Code:

if {[scan [stripcodes bcruag $text] %s%s text dummy] == 1} {

well, if the user will say two or multiple words the scan will return:

Code:

% set text "word1 word2 word3"word1 word2 word3% scan $text %s%s first second3% echo $firstword1% echo $secondword2

notice that it stored in the second variable only the second word, not second and third word.

Statistics: Posted by caesar — Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:42 am

Getall nicknames in channel

2012-02-24T19:12:41-04:00

I'm unsure of your code caesar :-

Code:

if {[scan $text %s channel]} {

If the command user mistakingly fails to input any command arguments, then scan will return -1 yet, when used in this way, any non-zero value is considered true. Hence the code inside the if statement may attempt execution, whereas it should not have. Am I correct in my assessment?

This discussion does give me an idea though. Generally, I concern myself with preventing users accidentally or deliberately inputting things that may break a script. This is what I might use normally :-

Code:

set text [regsub -all -- {\s{2,}} [stripcodes bcruag [string trim $text]] " "]if {[llength [split $text]] == 1} {

Quite ugly.

What about this :-

Code:

if {[scan [stripcodes bcruag $text] %s%s text dummy] == 1} {

Seems to kill several birds with one stone

1. No need to trim $text or convert double spaces between words to one space
2. Fails if the user inputs zero command arguments
3. Fails if the user inputs more than one command argument
4. Is half the number of lines of code
5. Uses scan to make my ugly code more efficient

On the subject of the if/lsearch issue I do think we are still on different wavelengths. I tried to explain that I only used it to construct a single code element, rather than actually determine whether the botnick is present in the list. As you point out, it always is. We both agree that without it, two seperate statements are required. Admittedly, on the subject of code efficiency it may be better to have two seperate statements.

Statistics: Posted by arfer — Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:12 pm

Getall nicknames in channel

2012-02-24T15:57:37-04:00

Actually, it should have been:

Code:

if {[scan $text %s channel]} {

cos $test is equal with 1 then a if {$test} { true as in equal or bigger than 1 } and if {!$test} { true as in equal with 0 }

To be honest I find scan usefull if for instance I have 3 variables I want to extract from a user input, so with scan is just as simple as:

Code:

if {[scan $text %s%s%s first second third] == 3} {

that's equal with:

Code:

set text [split $text]if {[llength $text] == 3} {set first [lindex $text 0]set second [lindex $text 1]set third [lindex $text 2]}

notice how easy is with scan to do about the same thing. I'd have to say thanks to user, cos I learned this trick from him.

Code:

if {[set bot [lsearch $nicklist $botnick]] != -1} {set nicklist [lreplace $nicklist $bot $bot]}

you don't need a if statement as it will always return true. I meant to change it to:

Code:

set bot [lsearch $nicklist $botnick]set nicklist [lreplace $nicklist $bot $bot]

Statistics: Posted by caesar — Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:57 pm

Getall nicknames in channel

2012-02-24T06:17:06-04:00

Thanks caesar, I did understand your intent in posting alternatives. My response was borne of your terminology 'you should use' whereas it might have been better to say 'you could use' or 'consider instead using'. I didn't want other readers to misinterpret your remarks and perhaps believe the script posted by Get_A_Fix is somehow disfunctional. As far as I can tell it is absolutely fine. I certainly hope so, since I contributed to it.

You wrote :-

Code:

if {[scan $text %s channel] != 1} {

I think you meant :-

Code:

if {[scan $text %s channel] == 1} {

I suppose you could consider rewriting the existing variable rather than creating another :-

Code:

if {[scan $text %s text] == 1} {

This is still not exactly equivalent to the existing code. It will not fail if more than one command argument is provided. Rather, it will rewrite the value of text with the first of the arguments, presuming that is what the command user intended. A perfectly fair assumption but I suppose it depends what the author prefers.

You wrote (replacing $channel with $text as per above) :-

Code:

if {[string equal -length 1 # $text]} {

I like this code very much and might adopt it. Just shows the benefit in looking more closely at command switches/options.

Finally, the 'if' statement is a way of removing $botnick in one uninterrupted statement. If I'm not mistaken it would otherwise require two disparate statements. One to find the list index, then another to remove it. This is not an important point, except if I was to generalize for the benefit of other readers and say that code elements often contain seemingly superfluous statements, yet are deliberate.

Statistics: Posted by arfer — Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:17 am

Getall nicknames in channel

2012-02-22T06:07:52-04:00

Sure, but if you can make things run faster at a lower resources consumption, why not?

I've said "proceed to remove it from the list" as in remove the if check statement as it will always return true, not in using another method if that's what you imply.

Statistics: Posted by caesar — Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:07 am

Getall nicknames in channel

2012-02-22T03:52:47-04:00

caesar, I think it is possible to use alternative syntax in any programming/scripting languages to achieve the same goal. Nonetheless, thank you for the interesting alternatives.

Out of interest, how would you remove $botnick from the channel list? As far as I can see the lsearch command is there to determine where it is in the list in order to facilitate removal, rather than merely whether or not it is there.

Statistics: Posted by arfer — Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:52 am

Getall nicknames in channel

2012-02-22T02:13:51-04:00

Instead of

Code:

if {[llength [split $text]] == 1} {

you should use scan like this:

Code:

if {[scan $text %s channel] != 1} {

cos this grabs and creates variable channel from the user's input. Also, instead of:

Code:

if {[regexp -- {^#} $text]} {

you should use:

Code:

if {[string equal -length 1 # $channel]} {

The chanlist function returns a list of nicks in one channel including bot's nick thus the check:

Code:

if {[set bot [lsearch $nicklist $botnick]] != -1}

always returns true, so skip ahead and remove him from the list.

Statistics: Posted by caesar — Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:13 am

Re: List users on specified channel

2012-02-21T19:51:15-04:00

Hi, while all this scripts posted here shows the current userlist on the current channel window opened. Can someone recode the script so the bot will show the userlist on the specified channel? like !chan <#channel> on public window. Thanks.

Command trigger ".who #channel"

Code:

bind pub - .who who:procproc who:proc {nick uhost hand chan text} {    global botnick    # check if user has access to bot or not    if {[matchattr $hand o|o $chan]} {        # check if a single argument given        if {[llength [split $text]] == 1} {            # check if the single argument could be a channel name            if {[regexp -- {^#} $text]} {                # check if the bot has a channel record                if {[validchan $text]} {                    # check if bot is on the channel                    if {[botonchan $text]} {                        set nicklist [chanlist $text]                        # removing botnick from the nicklist                        if {[set bot [lsearch $nicklist $botnick]] != -1} {set nicklist [lreplace $nicklist $bot $bot]}                        # loop to split output into 20 nicks per line in case of large channels                        while {[llength $nicklist] != 0} {                            set output [lrange $nicklist 0 19]                            putserv "PRIVMSG $chan :[join $output]"                            set nicklist [lrange $nicklist 20 end]                        }                    } else {putserv "PRIVMSG $chan :ERROR\: Bot is not currently monitoring $text"}                } else {putserv "PRIVMSG $chan :ERROR\: Bot does not have a channel record for $text"}            } else {putserv "PRIVMSG $chan :ERROR\: $text is not a legal channel name"}        } else {putserv "PRIVMSG $chan :ERROR\: Correct syntax .who #channel"}    }    return 0}

A big thanks goes out to arfer (you know who you are), for lending a hand and making this code proficient.

Statistics: Posted by Get_A_Fix — Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:51 pm

List users on specified channel

2012-02-21T11:09:05-04:00

Hi, while all this scripts posted here shows the current userlist on the current channel window opened. Can someone recode the script so the bot will show the userlist on the specified channel? like !chan <#channel> on public window. Thanks.

Statistics: Posted by visual — Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:09 am

Getall nicknames in channel

2012-02-09T11:49:19-04:00

The original posters question is the focus of this thread.

That was what I was going for. He asked for things a certain way, I made it how he wanted it, but gave options that could have been commented out; like the botnick or nick triggering event. My code would have choked if it was triggered on a large channel, I would need to split and have a newline.

Statistics: Posted by Get_A_Fix — Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:49 am

Getall nicknames in channel

2012-02-08T12:37:48-04:00

I got to admit that Get_A_Fix's method of removing the bot from the nick list is much better than having a isbotnick check inside a foreach loop.

Not for me, this removes the bots nick from the channel list. The bot is in the channel. This is incorrect. This is lying. My method highlights the bots nick. My method is accurate and honest.

Code:
} elseif {[string equal -nocase $nick $n]} {
Shouldn't $n be a $t?

Yes, i fixed that miniscule mistake.

Also, elseif statements should be better suited instead of plain if statements in the proc:mode function, or at least append that mode to mode variable if you wish to check if the user has two or multiple modes set, or leave it as it is if you wish to display only the highest one.

No, those MUST be left as individual if statements. A user can have MORE than one mode set. This is how it is intended. Your method is flawed. It is not accurate nor honest. It is lying, which I won't do.

---

Now, don't get me wrong. There are several ways to skin a cat. But when a poacher approaches you, and tells you that there are better ways to skin your cat and he can show you how. It appears condescending and low.
For example: Shouldn't $n be a $t? <-- do you notice the smiley? It's there as a "neener neener" for no other reason.

This is something equated with those who can't feel good about themselves, without making others feel bad. In this case, nit-picking and mis-understanding concepts has me feeling like some forum members always "just talk" and sit back on their laurels. They never provide any code of their own, just rip apart other peoples. Judge not, lest ye be judged. Keep this in mind. This is whats happening right now..

It doesn't matter what you like, or how you want things. The original posters question is the focus of this thread. Not trying to fit your whims..

Statistics: Posted by speechles — Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:37 pm

Getall nicknames in channel

2012-02-08T03:03:03-04:00

I got to admit that Get_A_Fix's method of removing the bot from the nick list is much better than having a isbotnick check inside a foreach loop.

Code:

} elseif {[string equal -nocase $nick $n]} {

Shouldn't $n be a $t? Also, elseif statements should be better suited instead of plain if statements in the proc:mode function, or at least append that mode to mode variable if you wish to check if the user has two or multiple modes set, or leave it as it is if you wish to display only the highest one.

Statistics: Posted by caesar — Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:03 am

Getall nicknames in channel

2012-02-08T05:18:25-04:00

Nice

Statistics: Posted by Get_A_Fix — Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:03 am

Getall nicknames in channel

2012-02-08T13:31:36-04:00

Code:

#---WONDERFUL NICKLIST# Wonderful world of what it is, there is nothing# more wonderful than wonderful is. The wonderful# script by ... egghelp ... the wonderful place.#--- config starts here---# Amount of nicks to put on each line as a maximum.set callNickPerLine 20# effect to add to the bots nick, put colors etc, go crazy.set callBotEffect "\002"# effect to add to the nickname triggering the call, again go nuts.set callNickEffect "\037"#--- script starts here ---bind pub - .call proc:callproc proc:call {n u h c t} {# iterate nicklist to pretty up with +%@ channel modesforeach nick [chanlist $c] {# make a new list, wrapping with the new modes and prettying it uplappend withmode [proc:figure:out [proc:mode $nick $c]]}return [proc:call:out $withmode $c $t]}# adds the appropriate effect to botnick or nick triggeringproc proc:figure:out {t} {if {[isbotnick $nick]} {return "$::callBotEffect$t\017"} elseif {[string equal -nocase $nick $t]} {return "$::callNickEffect$t\017"} return $t}# adds the appropriate channel mode +%@ to the nick# a nickname can have MORE than one mode set on itproc proc:mode {n c} {set mode ""if {[isvoice $n $c]} { append mode "+" }if {[ishalfop $n $c]} { append mode "%" }if {[isop $n $c]} { append mode "@" }return $mode$n}# outputs the pretty new nicklist with each line having the number of nicks you set aboveproc proc:call:out {t c s} {for {set x 0} {x < [llength $t]} {incr x [expr {$::callNickPerLine -1}] } {putserv "privmsg $c :[join [lrange $go $x [expr {$x + ($::callNickPerLine -1)}]]]"}putserv "privmsg $c :>>>>> $s"# change to "return 1"# if you wish not to block this command on other scripts.return 0}

This is more, what you would see if you want to make something simple look more than it is. This is an example of style versus simplicity. At what point do the two coexist? The answer is, they never do.

Edit: fixed.

Statistics: Posted by speechles — Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:28 pm

Getall nicknames in channel

2012-02-07T06:56:44-04:00

caesar, I code the way I code, I've taught myself and I don't think my methods will change. There are a lot of functions I don't use, know of, or even understand, so I keep it simple and know it works.
I didn't add flags to a bind because I like to use matchattr.

Statistics: Posted by Get_A_Fix — Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:56 am