Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
It sounds interesting.
I could see it as a server configuration, but it might also work as a
user-level setting:
look
You see a dark room.
set talkmode
look
You say "look"
unset talkmode
You see a dark room.
I have not looked at implementing either one. If one way is of more use to you,
code
it the way you want to use it. I'm happy to look at a patch, and will most
likely
merge it.
Original comment by miss...@hotmail.com
on 27 Apr 2010 at 9:07
should be:
look
You see a dark room.
set talkmode
look
You say "look"
unset talkmode
look
You see a dark room.
Original comment by miss...@hotmail.com
on 27 Apr 2010 at 11:34
Well, having both would be great, but the most important is to have a "world
default"
so people can have, on a dotty, what they expected without having to find out
"set
talkmode".
I'll try to implement the configuration setting first, then the "set talkmode"
setting. I don't know when will I have the time to look into code, tho...
Original comment by marcos.m...@optimus.pt
on 28 Apr 2010 at 9:10
It was a really small patch (python FTW ;-)), only briefly tested but seems to
be
working, here it is... I hope it is OK to be accepted.
PS -> this patch adds the configuration setting, not "set talkmode". I still
have to
see how "set" is implemented in tzmud to do that part...
Original comment by marcos.m...@optimus.pt
on 28 Apr 2010 at 12:48
Attachments:
It looks Ok to me.
Is "dotty" a standard term, or could we call it "talkmode" or
something else a bit more descriptive?
Original comment by miss...@hotmail.com
on 28 Apr 2010 at 6:01
"dotty" is a kind of "slang" term, usually to describe MUDs that have (only or
by
default) the ".help" behavior. There's some of that documented on wikipedia, on
an
old version of a page (then trimmed down because wikipedia folks felt the page
had
too much information):
in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talker&oldid=128225471 :
"Whilst talker bases had a variety of names for their codes, there were
essentially
only 2 base codes from which all other codes were based, this being NUTS (also
known
as "dotty" because of its use of a . before each command) and ew-too."
[...]
"NUTS-style talkers generally had completely different users to ew-too style
talkers.
People who used ew-too loved them and refused to use anything else, and
similarly
those who were used to the simpler commands of NUTS, and the "dotty" elements,
loved
NUTS. Whilst ew-too users were known as spods, NUTS users were not. In spite of
the
vast majority of adult (18+) talkers being NUTS-style or "dotty" talkers, the
vast
majority of NUTS talkers were all ages."
Sometimes those are called "NUTS-like" or "NUTS-style" because NUTS was the
original
talker base in which this style of commands were used (inspired on the BBS's).
Despite all this, NUTS and its derivatives actually have a command to change
from
this style to the more traditional style:
.mode
Now in COMMAND mode.
COM> mode
Now in SPEECH mode.
So, I think that calling it "command mode" and "speech mode" might not be a bad
idea.
There, you have the background, now the choice is up to you ;-) It makes no
difference to me, all I want is the feature ;-)
for those MU*s.
Original comment by marcos.m...@optimus.pt
on 28 Apr 2010 at 6:37
This issue was closed by revision r371.
Original comment by miss...@hotmail.com
on 29 Apr 2010 at 10:12
Thanks for the patch. I used it as a basis for my implementation.
Please let me know if this does not work the way you want it to.
You will need to create a new key in your conf.py
speechmode_default = True
Original comment by miss...@hotmail.com
on 29 Apr 2010 at 10:35
As mentioned under issue 36, speech mode right now does not
require dot for special commands. That is ...
@wizardcmd and !admincmd work, but
.@wizardcmd and .!admincmd do not work.
When creating the patch for this feature, I thought about
requiring dot for admin and wizard commands, but it seems
excessive to me. It doesn't seem like something people will
want to talk about much.
But, I think it might be good to allow .@cmd and .!cmd also
-- in addition to plain @cmd and !cmd.
Any objections to that?
Original comment by miss...@hotmail.com
on 21 May 2010 at 10:51
This issue was closed by revision r391.
Original comment by miss...@hotmail.com
on 22 May 2010 at 1:44
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
marcos.m...@optimus.pt
on 27 Apr 2010 at 8:20