Gummo, I tested it by putting the $regml(1) in the sock mark and it worked for me that way.
As for the $1, $2, etc.., from my experience, I never had to use $+ in accordance with the punctuation marks. I however do agree with you about it being the suitable format.

Jethro_, he can't store it in the original sock mark because it doesn't exist until the sockread. He then executes the sockmark as a partial command, so I don't know where you expect him to use it again.

On another note, whether "$1." is enabled doesn't change a preference to "$1 $+ ." which is a format more often used by a real programming language without a syntax which must be guessed by the compiler.

Thats a good point Jethro_, I think I'll be using that in my RPG script to refine the speed and cpu usage.
Does anyone have any figures for the relative usages of the methods?

Napa, you can store the $regml(1) in the sock().mark property for later reference with the regex:

cupcake, try using the goto command. It saves you the if conditions.And you don't need to use $+ when it comes to placing punctuation marks after the $1 or $2 etc...

cupcake please enclose ur code using the code tags.
it makes it ez on the eyes ;x Ex:

alias slap {
var %r $r(1,11)
if ( %r == 1 ) { describe $chan slaps $1 around a bit with a large trout. }
if ( %r == 2 ) { describe $chan slaps $1 with a television. }
if ( %r == 3 ) { describe $chan slaps $1 with room`s door. }
if ( %r == 4 ) { describe $chan giggles at $1 . }
if ( %r == 5 ) { describe $chan nudges $1 $+ . }
if ( %r == 6 ) { describe $chan pokes $1 with a birthday cake. }
if ( %r == 7 ) { describe $chan spanks $1 . }
if ( %r == 8 ) { describe $chan burns $1 hard. }
if ( %r == 9 ) { describe $chan pokes $1 with his leg. }
if ( %r == 10 ) { describe $chan tickles $1 . }
if ( %r == 11 ) { describe $chan beats $1 senseless with a wet noodle. }
}
Just thought that was cute added it, asked for suggestions. Yes, my sense of humor sucks. LOL

heres always a fun way ;x

alias slap {
var %r $r(1,10)
if ( %r == 1 ) { describe $chan slaps $1 around a bit with a large trout. }
if ( %r == 2 ) { describe $chan slaps $1 with a television. }
if ( %r == 3 ) { describe $chan slaps $1 with room`s door. }
if ( %r == 4 ) { describe $chan giggles at $1 . }
if ( %r == 5 ) { describe $chan nudges $1 $+ . }
if ( %r == 6 ) { describe $chan pokes $1 with a birthday cake. }
if ( %r == 7 ) { describe $chan spanks $1 . }
if ( %r == 8 ) { describe $chan burns $1 hard. }
if ( %r == 9 ) { describe $chan pokes $1 with his leg. }
if ( %r == 10 ) { describe $chan tickles $1 . }
}
there it's fixed, always change the variable var %r $r(1,10)
you added tickles

napa, I finally test it with 4 if conditions plus %r == <the same number> , and they all burst out in one shot. lol

Jethro_ Said:


when I tested it, it only said one of the number 6 ones not all of them so idk...

btw Arch you now have 2 number 1's in the snippet

Thanks for fix it ¨cupcake¨ yeap i just find it yesterday and forgot to fix that numbers ;-)

Yes, saw a lot of 8 balls and similar scripts using the 8 ball format. Have to say it's popular snippet.

The reason I mention "8 ball" is that this sort of script is largely based off of that or similar to a basic 8-ball snippet. I've seen far too many of them in the past, and snippet as such won't be the last to die nor the first to be submitted over and over again. You just keep your eyes peeled for it.

Works in my bot tested, before i made a comment. Hey, Jethro no one hasn't made a pin the tail on the Ass (donkey) snippet from 8 ball. LoL

try this

use /test x

about random words put that words in a file and use $read(file)

Was using Arch's format he had, just made it to be able to hit all commands.

All right, I should have tested it before my comment. I took napa's word for it. (Though that's the first time I've ever seen an 8 ball variation coded that way) I see all for of %r = 6 will be triggered at the same time, not just the first one. Still, though, that's not a wise approach, and it simulates spamming. I wouldn't go that route if I were the author of this snippet.

Gummo, I recall you saying that before. Deja vu :P

Tested the snippet, never make a comment without testing first.
alias slap {
var %r $r(1,9)
if ( %r == 1 ) { describe $chan slaps $1 around a bit with a large trout. }
if ( %r == 2 ) { describe $chan slaps $1 with a television. }
if ( %r == 3 ) { describe $chan slaps $1 with room`s door. }
if ( %r == 4 ) { describe $chan giggles at $1 . }
if ( %r == 5 ) { describe $chan nudges $1 . }
if ( %r == 6 ) { describe $chan pokes $1 with a birthday cake. }
if ( %r == 7 ) { describe $chan spanks $1 . }
if ( %r == 8 ) { describe $chan burn $1 hard. }
if ( %r == 9 ) { describe $chan pokes $1 with his leg. }
}
not a good scriptor admit that, still this is how i would do the snippet...you're snippet it's cute.

The general hate for the goto command stems from the "goto is now bad programming" once structured programming techniques were developed, even though goto often makes faster, more logical code.

all them will be sent to channel... i tested it

on the contrary, all 4 of those if statements will be satisfied; if %r = 6 then he will send all 4 actions (unless there's a custom /describe alias involved which performs a /halt after sending the action). it seems undesirable, but doesn't appear to bother him - if, in fact, he's tested it thoroughly enough to notice this :P

Arch, even though you've said it "works" for you, and it does work for the most part, there's no denying the fact that only ONE out of your 4 %r == 6 will get triggered. (The first one, that is) The rest will be ignored by the code routine. As napa's mentioned before you, I'm surprised you still acknowledge your snippet as "workable."

Yes, I like the goto command for the randomization aspect of such snippet, but some folks find it unfavorable...for which reason I have yet to figure out why.

just something to consider: when you embed data in a function like that, mIRC has to go through the trouble of interpreting the whole series of selections even though you only end up choosing just one. while this is merely a low-level consideration in this case (few choices that only inclue simple identifiers such as $1), you can probably see how it can become more significant as your set of data increases and starts to include more complex code. a solution to this might be to store data elsewhere in the client, or even use the /goto approach one typically sees to replicate switch/case in mIRC:



also, when wrestling with the question of which character to use as delimiter to separate a list of items, try to first consider those that can never appear as part of a msg on IRC (if applicable), such as $cr or $lf. that, or try to re-work the code in question so it need not use such a list:

Yeaap, Minimum it works for me,
Just try that and report it here. Tq

I always get errors on $1. WorldDMT, are you sure it works? In most cases I use $+ like he has.

u dont need "$+" u can just do $1. without "$+"

Oh Yeah, you spot the possibility. That was just an example for a workaround. How about using some uncommon characters, such as $chr(172) as a delimiter? That will do it.