Re: [9fans] irc tools

[Jack Johnson <fragment@nas.com>]

On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 17:41, Russ Cox wrote:
> I'm curious what you mean about the difference between
> acme and sam as a model for a chat client.  The only difference
> between acme and sam windows (for the purposes of this discussion)
> is that sam windows are click-to-type and acme windows aren't.
> Are you claiming that moving the mouse but not clicking is
> somehow worse than moving the mouse and clicking?

I think it would/could be in this case, but you've clarified something
for me.  See below.

> and then type something at the next prompt but don't hit enter.
>
> 	g% {sleep 5; echo -----------} &
> 	g% something
>
> becomes
>
> 	g% {sleep 5; echo -----------} &
> 	g% -----------
> 	something

Ah, now (if memory serves) this is exactly what does not happen to me
using either 9irc or a unix IRC client in dumb terminal mode, run as a
host command in Inferno.

You can imagine how annoying it would be to do:

	g% som-----------
	ething

and attempting to hold a conversation in a busy channel.  I mistakenly
extrapolated that behavior to something inherent in acme.  My sincere
apologies.

(for the record, ditching the prompt for an IRC client seems like a good
idea)

> What did you have in mind in as the "sam-style" interface?

Traditionally, sam ends up looking something like this:

	+------------------+
	|                  |
	+------------------+
	+-------------+
	|             |
	|    +-------------+
	|    |             |
	+----|             |
	     +-------------+

where the upper window is the sam window and the lower windows are file
windows (though of course the placement is arbitrary).

It would be easy enough to use the same model, maybe invert it something
like:

	+-------------+
	|             |
	|    +-------------+
	|    |             |
	+----|             |
	     +-------------+
	+------------------+
	|                  |
	+------------------+

where the upper windows were all IRC server output (either raw/basic for
development purposes or separated out by channel/person/etc.) and the
lower window was for sending text and/or commands to the active window.
My reasoning for using this mode rather than acme being the ability to
easily link the action with the result.  Active window: active
conversation.  Arbitrary placement of any of the windows wouldn't change
the user's intended result, but I can easily envision a window
arrangement in acme that would be less than intuitive (assuming we're
still talking about multiple windows per server).

I could see myself mixing conversations in an acme-oriented IRC
environment, though if you're already in acme my suggestion would just
be a waste of screen real estate, and the more thought I give it the
more I think a single window client would probably work out the best.

-Jack