Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tellerian Hawke" data-source="post: 7791462" data-attributes="member: 6790669">I'm not trying to sound pushy, or arrogant, and I'm not trying to &quot;poke the bear.&quot;I truly want to understand the reasons behind this.If the app is able to be modified by its implementors, why would adding SBLOCK as an alternate way to call the spoiler function be difficult?I'm not saying that you should add another command that duplicates the function of the spoiler routine; I'm saying you should add a term to the existing spoiler routine, which will accommodate previous instances.In my head, I am picturing this: (Very simplified version):IF INPUT = SPOILER THEN OPEN SPOILER ROUTINEIF INPUT = /SPOILER THEN CLOSE SPOILER ROUTINEWould change to this:IF INPUT = SPOILER, SBLOCK THEN OPEN SPOILER ROUTINEIF INPUT = /SPOILER, /SBLOCK THEN CLOSE SPOILER ROUTINESo I'm guessing it's a lot more complicated than that? I haven't programmed anything since my FORTRAN days (Yes, I'm that old) so please forgive me if this is a &quot;Stupid&quot; question.To me, it seems to be the most elegant solution to the eyesore of all of those SBLOCK functions that now don't work. You don't add a command, you simply add a term that also calls the spoiler routine.The alternative, would be to write a script, that scours the entire database, and replaces every instance of SBLOCK or /SBLOCK with SPOILER or /SPOILER. That seems like a big server load to me, whereas adding a term simply allows the old posts to remain unchanged, while allowing the spoiler command to continue functioning as intended.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tellerian Hawke, post: 7791462, member: 6790669"] I'm not trying to sound pushy, or arrogant, and I'm not trying to "poke the bear." I truly want to understand the reasons behind this. If the app is able to be modified by its implementors, why would adding SBLOCK as an alternate way to call the spoiler function be difficult? I'm not saying that you should add another command that duplicates the function of the spoiler routine; I'm saying you should add a term to the existing spoiler routine, which will accommodate previous instances. In my head, I am picturing this: (Very simplified version): IF INPUT = SPOILER THEN OPEN SPOILER ROUTINE IF INPUT = /SPOILER THEN CLOSE SPOILER ROUTINE Would change to this: IF INPUT = SPOILER, SBLOCK THEN OPEN SPOILER ROUTINE IF INPUT = /SPOILER, /SBLOCK THEN CLOSE SPOILER ROUTINE So I'm guessing it's a lot more complicated than that? I haven't programmed anything since my FORTRAN days (Yes, I'm that old) so please forgive me if this is a "Stupid" question. To me, it seems to be the most elegant solution to the eyesore of all of those SBLOCK functions that now don't work. You don't add a command, you simply add a term that also calls the spoiler routine. The alternative, would be to write a script, that scours the entire database, and replaces every instance of SBLOCK or /SBLOCK with SPOILER or /SPOILER. That seems like a big server load to me, whereas adding a term simply allows the old posts to remain unchanged, while allowing the spoiler command to continue functioning as intended. [/QUOTE]

Verification