egghelp/eggheads community

bot kick to ops

2003-10-05T15:01:05-04:00

okay that was a good explanation, sorry for being so stuborn :p, I have a math test (irrational functions) tommorow, so I've got my mind mixed up with all the problems solving

thank you

Statistics: Posted by Sir_Fz — Sun Oct 05, 2003 3:01 pm

bot kick to ops

2003-10-05T14:24:43-04:00

I know what they mean... but rationalizing them:

with || it means for example if $nick isn't voiced or oped then the proc will apply to him, but with &&, $nick must be NOT oped and NOT voiced, which means if he is oped but isnt voice or vise versa he won't be exempted.

Sir_Fz.... with || the scenario will always be true.... This is because the person will never be BOTH opped and voiced....

Code:

if {![isop $nick $kickchan] || ![isvoice $nick $kickchan]} {

In other terms... If Sir_Fz is not opped in #egghelp, or not voiced in #egghelp, then let's do the following code... See?

Analysis of ||:
First Scenario) If you are opped, you don't have to be voiced, which will make the code following the statement get triggered...
Second Scenario) If you are voiced, you don't have to be opped, which will make the code following the statement get triggered as well...
Third Scenario) If you don't have either voice or op status, the code following the statement will get triggered as well...

See? it is the same as having if {1} { ... this stuff will always get called ... }

That is why && is needed...

Code:

if {![isop $nick $kickchan] && ![isvoice $nick $kickchan]} {

In other terms, if Sir_Fz is not opped in #egghelp, and not voiced in #egghelp, then let's do the following code...

Analysis of &&:
First scenario) If you are opped, you don't satisfy the first (not opped) condition, so already the code following the statement must be skipped [which is what we want to happen, remember?]
Second scenario) If you are voiced, you satisfy the first (not opped) condition, but you don't satisfy the second (not voiced) condition, so the code following the statement must again be skipped [again, which is what we want to happen]
Third scenario) If you are neither opped or voiced, then you satisfy both conditions, thus the code following the statement will be executed...[which is truly what we want, as we only want the bot to react on these
typ of channel members, leaving ops and voiced users alone]

I don't know how else to explain it to you Sir_Fz... if you don't get this explanation, then I'm afraid you will never understand

Statistics: Posted by strikelight — Sun Oct 05, 2003 2:24 pm

bot kick to ops

2003-10-05T13:39:37-04:00

No, but just to be safe, you could make in {#}. I always use {}'s around strings that I don't want Tcl to parse.

Statistics: Posted by BarkerJr — Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:39 pm

bot kick to ops

2003-10-05T13:27:28-04:00

Code:

set spambantime 60set spamwords {  "\#"[snip]

I guess there's no need for the "" behind #

Statistics: Posted by Sir_Fz — Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:27 pm

bot kick to ops

2003-10-05T11:59:20-04:00

Code:

set spambantime 60set spamwords {  "\#"  "join"  "channel"}bind msgm - * pv_kick proc pv_kick {nick uhost hand text} {   global botnick spamwords spambantime  foreach sw $spamwords {    if {[string match -nocase "*$sw*" "$text"]} {      foreach kickchan [channels] {         set kickchan [string tolower $kickchan]         if {[onchan $nick $kickchan]} {              if {(![isop $nick $kickchan]) && (![isvoice $nick $kickchan])} {             set bmask "*!*[string range $uhost [string first "@" $uhost] end]"             if {(![ischanban $bmask $kickchan]) && ([botisop $kickchan])} {               set kickmsg "\00312\002\037Cause\037:\002 Mass-Msg/Invite/Adv/Trojan Send\00312"                putquick "KICK $kickchan $nick :$kickmsg"               newchanban $kickchan $bmask $botnick Mass-Msg $spambantime            }          } else {            return 0          }        }       }      return 0    }   } }

Statistics: Posted by Dedan — Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:59 am

bot kick to ops

2003-10-05T09:58:20-04:00

I know what they mean... but rationalizing them:

with || it means for example if $nick isn't voiced or oped then the proc will apply to him, but with &&, $nick must be NOT oped and NOT voiced, which means if he is oped but isnt voice or vise versa he won't be exempted.

Statistics: Posted by Sir_Fz — Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:58 am

bot kick to ops

2003-10-05T09:05:16-04:00

wohooo... of course i'm right. i thought 5 mins about it before posting

Statistics: Posted by arcane — Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:05 am

bot kick to ops

2003-10-05T06:21:38-04:00

Code:

if {![isop $nick $kickchan] || ![isvoice $nick $kickchan]} {

means:
if $nick is NOT oped in $kickchan OR if $nick is NOT voiced in $kickchan continue with the proc..
the:

Code:

if {![isop $nick $kickchan] && ![isvoice $nick $kickchan]} {

means:
if $nick is NOT oped in $kickchan AND if $nick is NOT voiced in $kickchan continue with the proc..

and yes, I was working on a repeat and on a stats TCL script. sorry for the confusion I've accidentaly made. My appologies for that.

Statistics: Posted by caesar — Sun Oct 05, 2003 6:21 am

bot kick to ops

2003-10-05T06:09:53-04:00

I dont know why this whole discussion occured, but what caesar said is correct but explained it in another way.

caesar said: if the user is oped AND voiced skip it
strikelight said: if the user is NOT opped AND NOT voiced then do the following

also, if its && then if the user is oped or voiced then it won't skip it, he must be oped AND voiced in order for the bot to skip it. So I guess || is whats needed ?

OMG NO! NOT AGAIN! I JUST GOT CAESAR TO SEE THE ERROR OF HIS WAYS!! NOT YOU NOW! SIR FZ THAT IS WRONG!@!@##!@#
READ ALL THE COMMENTS I SAID TO CAESAR!!!

I know, typing in caps is annoying, but so is repeating one's self...
heh... oy vay...

Moral of story: Arcane is correct, && is needed.. please someone lock this topic before anyone else gets more confused

Statistics: Posted by strikelight — Sun Oct 05, 2003 6:09 am

bot kick to ops

2003-10-05T05:48:23-04:00

I dont know why this whole discussion occured, but what caesar said is correct but explained it in another way.

caesar said: if the user is oped AND voiced skip it
strikelight said: if the user is NOT opped AND NOT voiced then do the following

also, if its && then if the user is oped or voiced then it won't skip it, he must be oped AND voiced in order for the bot to skip it. So I guess || is whats needed ?

Statistics: Posted by Sir_Fz — Sun Oct 05, 2003 5:48 am

bot kick to ops

2003-10-05T02:06:32-04:00

Umm.. yes, duno why I haven't seen the ! before them.. mea culpa

It's okay, your eyes must be strained from working on a large TCL project, I'm sure

Statistics: Posted by strikelight — Sun Oct 05, 2003 2:06 am

bot kick to ops

2003-10-05T01:50:44-04:00

Umm.. yes, duno why I haven't seen the ! before them.. mea culpa

Statistics: Posted by caesar — Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:50 am

bot kick to ops

2003-10-04T19:36:19-04:00

|| means or and && and.. I've said if the || is replaced by an && then will be if something AND something then do.. not if something OR something else then do.. It's exactly what you've said that I've said wrong.

poor caesar... maybe you don't understand what "NOT" is...
Again, here is EXACTLY what you said:

Actualy no, by changing from || to && will make it test: if the user is oped AND voiced skip it.. the || dose the OR part, not viceversa.

see the part where you said: if the user is oped AND voiced skip it

that is NOT what it would become... it would become if the user is NOT opped AND NOT voiced then do the following

or if you are determined to say when it won't occur, then it would be:

if the user IS opped OR the user IS voiced then skip it...

Arcane is correct, either way you want to read it.

Statistics: Posted by strikelight — Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:36 pm

bot kick to ops

2003-10-04T18:28:52-04:00

|| means or and && and.. I've said if the || is replaced by an && then will be if something AND something then do.. not if something OR something else then do.. It's exactly what you've said that I've said wrong.

Statistics: Posted by caesar — Sat Oct 04, 2003 6:28 pm

bot kick to ops

2003-10-04T17:34:09-04:00

And what I've said?

You did not say the "NOT"'s....

Statistics: Posted by strikelight — Sat Oct 04, 2003 5:34 pm