Braden Temme wrote:
>
> I need one more thing then. Lets say we have a hypothetical situation of nine
>people in the
> channel. Three have ops, three have voice, and three have no status:
>
> A Opped
> B Opped
> C Opped
>
> B Voiced
> BAAAB Voiced
> BAAAC Voiced
>
> C
> I need one more thing then. Lets say we have a hypothetical situation of
nine people in the
> channel. Three have ops, three have voice, and three have no status:
>
> A Opped
> B Opped
> C Opped
>
> B Voiced
> BAAAB Voiced
> BAAAC Voiced
>
> C Nothing
> CAAAB Nothing
> CAAA
I need one more thing then. Lets say we have a hypothetical situation of nine people
in the
channel. Three have ops, three have voice, and three have no status:
A Opped
B Opped
C Opped
B Voiced
BAAAB Voiced
BAAAC Voiced
C Nothing
CAAAB Nothing
CAAAC Nothing
How would thi
The ':o' modifier is just a flag, to save space/bandwidth it only
indicates a change of state. So, if you see a ':o', or ':v' or ':ov'
appended to a numeric, the subsequent numerics will also have that state
(op'd, etc) applied to them. That is until you encounter another change of
state :)
C
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 05:58:50PM -0800, Braden Temme wrote:
> I think I found a bug. I noticed that when two servers link up they aren't fully
>reporting who is
> opped in a channel. In fact, its only reporting one person opped in each channel.
>
> Server Output:
> AC B #chatweb 1016220367 +
I think I found a bug. I noticed that when two servers link up they aren't fully
reporting who is
opped in a channel. In fact, its only reporting one person opped in each channel.
Server Output:
AC B #chatweb 1016220367 +tn AEAAD:o,ACAAn,ACAAm
NAMES output:
#chatweb @DarkHorse @Knoxville @Bra
