Mudlet features and API requests

[Vadi]

Add a table.update function:

Code: [show] | [select all] lua

function update(t1, t2) 
	for k,v in pairs(t2) do 
		if type(v) == "table" then 
			t1[k] = update(t1[k] or {}, v) 
		else 
			t1[k] = v 
		end 
	end 
	return t1 
end

merges contents of t2 into t1 in place.

Code: Select all

> printr(f, 1000, a)
{
	a = true,
	c = true,
	b = true,
}
> printr(f, 1000, b)
{
	a = false,
	c = false,
}
> update(a,b)
> printr(f, 1000, a)
{
	a = false,
	c = false,
	b = true,
}
> 

[demonnic]

+1

[Vadi]

closures for temp triggers ala temptimer style, so we can operate with upvalues:

Code: [show] | [select all] lua

local data
tempRegexTrigger("my pattern", function() data = "whatever" end)

[Denarii]

You know, I think I did that at one point but it didn't end up getting merged into git.

[Vadi]

See if you can dig up the patch, and email it again...

/me also needs to get the patch that fixes mudlet api error messages to say which function they come from in as well

[Vadi]

See if you can dig up the patch, and email it again...

/me also needs to get the patch that fixes mudlet api error messages to say which function they come from in as well

[Iocun]

closures for temp triggers ala temptimer style, so we can operate with upvalues:

Code: [show] | [select all] lua

local data
tempRegexTrigger("my pattern", function() data = "whatever" end)

This would be awesome.

[naftali]

/me also needs to get the patch that fixes mudlet api error messages to say which function they come from in as well

As that would be. Also, if you could maybe look at the way debug messages sometimes get the line wrong (saying the error comes from line 2 in a 1-line script is the one that made me sure I wasn't imagining this)

[naftali]

New request - if a multiline/and trigger has only one pattern of type 'perl regexp' whose number is num, the matches table should equal multimatches[num].

Most of the time when i use multiline/and triggers I'm really just making a shielded regexp. In such a case I always have the first line in my script be 'matches = multimatches[2]' or whatever the number of the regexp pattern is, because it's alot simpler to think of things like that. I never care about the other contents of the multimatches table anyway in such cases, and even if I did I COULD still get at them - this isn't about not using multimatches, it's about also using matches for the part that most people use.

EDIT: Bloody hell. Is this understandable? This is one of those days when communication is a struggle.

[Vadi]

I don't see this being necessary, personally. It'll just clutter the interface if we get more and more such 'workarounds'.