On 2 Oct 2000, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> It is possible to get clever, but if we were to do anything special with
> '>' quoting, I would prefer that we pretend that it isn't there, so you
> could just quote back the output of configshow instead of editing out your
> own quotes.
Yes, that's what makes sense.
> Ignoring AOL quoting is also tough, because if done wrong, we could end up
> nuking entire messages because we misread a spurious '<<' and never saw a
> closing '>>'. (Insert usual grumbles about how stupid AOL's quoting format
> is.)
Stupid, yes, but here to stay, it seems.
> RBAK> I'd say fully 30% of the screw-ups I see involve reply citations
> RBAK> confusing the parser.
>
> I assume this is Mj1. How does the parser get confused? Or is this just
> one of those instances where it spews a whole bunch of "I didn't understand
> this" and then tacks on the huge help text?
That's right.
But for my typical AOL user,
<< subscribe foo >>
and
subscribe foo
are the same. (And when the error message has that silly
>>>>> << subscribe foo >>
look to it, they really freak.)
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE rogerk@QueerNet.ORG
PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114
"There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
