By Secressy on Apr 11, 2011Heehee it might not work perfectly
on *:NOTICE:*:?:{ if ($nick == Partyroom[01]) || ($nick == Partyroom[02]) || ($nick == Partyroom[03]) || ($nick == Partyroom[04]) || ($nick == Partyroom[05]) ($nick == Partyroom) {
if (*PANIC* isin $1-) { /msg #YOURCHAN .run | HALT }
if (*frozen* isin $1-) { /timer 1 400 /msg #M_R_S_C .pop | HALT }
if (*RANDOM* isin $1-) { /msg #YOURCHAN .skip | HALT }
else {
set %string1 $right($1-,7) | set %num $left(%string1,2)
if (%num < 10) {
/timer 1 15 /msg #YOURCHAN .pop
}
else { /timer 1 %num /msg #YOURCHAN .pop }
}
}
else { HALT }
}
why would you give an example somewhat unrelated to and outside the realm of the submitted code? You should have tested your example first before giving it out as a suggestion. An untested suggestion may often become misleading and faulty.
I'm not sure how a regex pattern pertaining to the nicks listed is construed as outside the realm of the submitted code, or where I stated that I had not tested my submission before hand. As for matching I was simply suggesting that if Partyroom was to expand their number of bots that this code would fall short as time went on. It'd be better to be able to match the nicks it uses with room for expansion; after all since when has going above and beyond been a bad thing? Speculating each others code shouldn't be, in any case, perceived as a bad thing either.
I'm not sure what you meant by "was not of usual par" and "expand the array that Secressy has hard-coded." And the rest of jargon explanation.
No offense and no intention to turn this into a troll -- why would you give an example somewhat unrelated to and outside the realm of the submitted code? You should have tested your example first before giving it out as a suggestion. An untested suggestion may often become misleading and faulty.
I'll let jaytea be the judge if he sees this thread and offer his two cents' worth if he doesn't mind, as you sounded as though my example may not be as trustworthy as it seems.
By getting the job I had meant that it matches the nicks specified; I had also mentioned that my example was not of usual par. Also as with any good sized bot the tags can expand past the array that Secressy has hard-coded. Leaving gaps in functionality if Partyroom bot was to grow more expansive. Mine also matches the non-tagged "Partyroom" at the end of his masquerade of nicks. Although I cannot say the same for your example yet as I haven't bothered to fire up mIRC and try it.
No, unfortunately your regex won't get the job done. The issue with your regex pattern is that you need to escape the brackets; as in regex, they have their own special meaning:
/Partyroom\[0[1-5]\]$/
[0-9] matches every number from 0 through 9. The author only specifies it from 01 to 05. The $ symbol is needed to end the number 5, so it won't trigger followed by another string. The question mark by itself means optional.
Well considering how i am one of the PartyRoom bot owners i will deffinatly look into this autoer seeing as how autoing is against the rules made for the bot (found in: http://partyroom-bot.com/?inc=rules) i will inform anyone who tries to use this that PartyRoom does have a timer detection system which will disable accounts automatically. please think before you use this script.
A small regex pattern could cover your numerous Partyroom nick matches.
$regex($nick,/(Partyroom?[0-9]?)/))
I'm not par with regex quite yet and I'm sure someone will jump in and bust my chops for my horrible example but it should get the job done. You could possibly polish it up a little bit with an escape character (Which, I'm assuming, is the one of the back slashes. (/ or )) to replace the any character match (?) with a more specific character match. Seeing as the brackets [ and ] are used by regex to represent character classes of sorts; it makes it a whole nother ball game to mix them into the matching process.