Updated to v.0.2. See description + comments.

This script permits one to stylise their nickname with colours. It also defines a representation for colourful nicknames that is compatible with all IRC networks and is completely invisible to most IRC clients; If others are using this script, they will also be able to see the colours one defines.

Unless you have any issues with a section of the script that cause your computer to explode, please don't comment. I haven't an issue that people will comment on my code, but the comments that aren't on my code hardly seem to be relevant to the comment section that is for my code.

Style. I don't mean "mIRC scripting style", though if it exists, I don't care about that either. I mean the style of your user interface. I've been saying this the whole time: I don't care. If you want to change it, go for it, but why talk about those changes here? I've made it easy enough to change so you don't have to talk about it.

I usually review my script before posting. Things that look like what you posted earlier, gooshie, end up looking more like what is there. I wasn't thinking straight when I put the "return" in at the end, but if you've dealt with the people I've dealt with ("How do I change the style?") you'll try to make some things easier to change than others.

You're right, gooshie. Indeed they should be on start and on exit. Thanks.

At some point in time I got quite sick of colourful tags making my colour scheme look hideous. I was happy with mIRC's colour stripping functionality until less than a month later, people started using hideously long, obscure tags. This was the result of my anguish.

The other point is that making it secure would involve either:

1. Far more complex logic or
2. Far less customisability.

You still seem to be missing the point. Merely introducing a server to THIS script, without changing any other aspects of the functionality would make THIS script insecure.

@Jethro_: I understand that it seems to you I'm a prick. I did try to inform the other participant of the debate that it's possible. I only considered writing this code after said opposition questioned my intelligence. Yes, to you I sound like a prick. To people like him, I think it's a rude awakening that is required. If I come across as abrasive or rude, normally it's because I'm telling things how I see them. I try to put it in a way that says "I see it this way" rather than "It is this way". To me, it's honesty.

@sunslayer: You seem to be missing the point. If you involve a webserver, one of the three compromises must be made:
[] The security of the script must be compromised.
[] The script must lose abstraction and customisability.
[*] The script must become far more complex.
You seem to be saying that I can make the script less customisable (which some people would complain about), or that I can make the script more complex (which others would complain about) and secure the script. Am I correct?

@Jethro_: Learning about security is an essential, basic part of scripting. I think you're confusing "high horse" with "truth serum".

Actually, it doesn't work. My definition of "work" is "functions correctly, 100% of the time". I noticed a bug today: Some of the lines in the insult files rely on $1 being the nickname of the person to insult. I forgot about this. I'll fix + update it momentarily.

To thise who think what I said above was nonsense, I wish you'd have been more specific so I could actually form a response that is directly relevant. Since you were obscure about what you disagreed with, I'll consider it a disagreement to everything I said.

By writing the insult generating part of the script the way I have, it's simple, secure (providing care is taken to ensure insecure code doesn't end up in the .txt files) and extensible. This script uses a layer of evaluation native to $read. If you open up the .txt files that the insults are read from, you'll notice $identifiers used in it. Those are evaluated when a line is randomly read from the file. This is elementary scripting, and if you don't know this then you shouldn't be running scripts on Hawkee; Running scripts without knowing precisely what the script can do is dangerous. By auditing the files, you can see that my script isn't dangerous. If I were to use a server, the script would either lose abstraction, become a security issue, or that layer of evaluation would be lost and as a result the script would become a lot more complex.

Any questions or comments? Do you disagree with anything there?

That sounds like a fairly wasteful idea. It'd be far easier to request them as quotes from a qotd service, but what's the problem with that? The extra layer of evaluation is missing. Mind you, it's a safe layer of evaluation.

The minute you involve web fetches of any kind, you either lose the layer of evaluation or you expose your entire system to the server; You essentially become part of a botnet. Don't trust scripts that use "automatic fetching from HTTP", particularly in conjunction with $eval, $(), timer, /flash, /scid, /alias, $read without the n switch (as in my script), etc. They're a real potential security risk... It's your credit card ;)

Wouldn't that be even more painful? You'd have to create 11 files and manually copy&paste into them...

Not really. I used to script for my own purposes. I'm not much into scripting any more, so I though I'd throw a few pieces out there. I completely forgot about hawkee up until earlier tonight. There are a few other things I wrote that I'll be putting up when I gather their bits and pieces.

I'm not waiting. Evidently, you are, for this: http://www.hawkee.com/scripts/16903499/

I hope you enjoy it :)

This script was meant to show how easy it is to develop a simple insult generating alias, not a bot... but since you've requested it, I believe I have something lying around you might be interested in.