substitutions shouldn't respond to the user.

[rlemon]

It was really a good idea, and still is.. but the common usage is pretty much the opposite of that being useful. Usually leading to the bot responding with :

@usera @userb blah blah blah

and as we've ohh so often seen

@userC @usera @userb blah blah blah

and so on..

It really seems that substitutions should just reply inline (not respond) and possibly while we are at it strip literal string versions of '(source)' so those do not stack. check from the end of the string maybe?

[shea-sollars]

Ran into a bug while attempting to test this.

Personally, I'm happy with having some form of @replying to the OP, but it wouldn't hurt to be a little more sophisticated. However, I disagree with removing the (source) completely. Instead, just remove the old one before appending the new (source).

The flow of things could be:

(Tom:msg#001) how do I inject JS?
(Jim:msg#002) :001 use a script element
(Bob:msg#003) :002 @Tom you should use eval
(John:msg#004) !!>s/should/shouldn't/
(Cap:msg#005) :004 @Bob Tom you shouldn't use eval (source#003)
(Jim:msg#006) !!>s/eval/drugs/
(Cap:msg#007) :006 @John Tom you shouldn't use drugs (source#005)

Imho, it turning into something like @Jim @John @Bob @Tom you shouldn't use drugs, is all part of the fun though.

[MadaraUchiha]

That bug is due to !!s being reliant on the DOM of room 17, so it can only replace messages from there.

[rlemon]

Removing the old source (I.e the text, not the linking one) is my proposal
On May 11, 2016 3:25 AM, "Madara Uchiha" [email protected] wrote:

That bug is due to !!s being reliant on the DOM of room 17, so it can
only replace messages from there.

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#279 (comment)

[benjamingr]

Sounds good to me.