Closed mwilkinson81 closed 7 years ago
Hmm... this would be "difficult", as we'd have to store a lot more than a simple integer.
Also, what happens in the following cases? (Who do the runs "belong to"?)
!command count potato +5
!command count potato -5
!command count potato =100
Maybe you could reduce the amount of storage needed by instead implementing it per stream. (The filter makes it reset to 0 at the end of the stream) and then the !command count
can just modify all instances of %count%
including the per stream ones in the command, because I don't really see any purpose for per-user counts. See #177
Hmm... that's a good point, actually. What would be the purpose of per-user counters? cc: @mwilkinson81
Like, I can see it being a neat little addition just to play around with a bit but I don't see any real purpose of it. :/
I feel as though this could be obliterated due to the fact none of us can think of any purpose for this and @mwilkinson81 hasn't responded at all.
(But per stream %COUNT%
s should exist, I would imagine something like the filter %COUNT|stream%
or something like that.)
Closing. (Can reopen if we discover a purpose for it later.)
It'd be nice to have a filter like |user to use with the %count% variable to only count the number of times the user that ran the command had ran the command.
For Example:
EngineerWilky81: !command add userCount %name% ran this command %count|user% times. CactusBotAlpha: command !userCount added. EngineerWilky81: !userCount CactusBotAlpha: EngineerWilky81 ran this command 1 times. ImoutoKurpo: !userCount CactusBotAlpha: ImoutoKurpo ran this command 1 times.