[IRCServices] A ilttle suggestion for set mlock

[Ekim Engin]

Hi again, 
well i am not quite sure if this really is that confusing. I am
compleatly against changing the current behavior due to backwards (and
thus script) compatibility. But as s.o. using services myself, and
having enough ppl. on #help channels ask about this. I found out, that a
modify function is quite easier to explain to them as letting them do an
ns info (or doing it myself) and explainng that they have to take this
modes
And modfiy them theirselfs. IRC has become a plave where memorizing
isused to learn things, not understanding or thinking :( ))

Well i am using the following simple function change myself:

--- snip chanserv.c - line: 1943 ---
static void do_set_mlock(User *u, ChannelInfo *ci, char *param)
{
    char *s, modebuf[32], *end, c;
    int add = -1;	/* 1 if adding, 0 if deleting, -1 if neither */
    int32 newlock_on = 0, newlock_off = 0, newlock_limit = 0;
    char *newlock_key = NULL;

    while (*param) {
	if (*param != '+' && *param != '-' && *param != '=' && add < 0)
{
	    param++;
	    continue;
	}
	switch ((c = *param++)) {
	  case '+':
	    add = 1;
	    break;
	  case '-':
	    add = 0;
	    break;
        case '=': 
	    if (add == -1) {
		newlock_on = ci->mlock_on;
		newlock_off = ci->mlock_off;
	    }
          break;
    	  case 'k':
--- snip ---

This fullfils my needs for using = to modify and +,- as usual to set the
modes..
But sure its up to you...

Greets
Ekim

---
Chat begins as it ends - without reason 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ircservices-admin at ircservices.za.net 
> [mailto:ircservices-admin at ircservices.za.net] On Behalf Of 
> Andrew Church
> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 3:33 AM
> To: ircservices at ircservices.za.net
> Subject: Re: [IRCServices] A ilttle suggestion for set mlock
> 
> 
>      This is something I've been thinking about for a while, 
> but my major concern is that it will be too confusing for the 
> users.  Particularly seeing as the MLOCK command isn't really 
> used that often, it seems simpler and more easily 
> understandable to me to just have a "set" command and not a 
> "modify" command as well.  And I have to say the "=" proposal 
> isn't very intuitive either... if anything, I'd want = to be 
> for setting, and no "=" to mean changing, but that doesn't 
> solve the original problem of the confusingness of having 
> both ways, plus it raises additional problems by changing 
> established practice.
> 
>   --Andrew Church
>     achurch at achurch.org
>     http://achurch.org/
>