Time |
Nick |
Message |
00:07 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
00:33 |
|
Krock joined #luanti-dev |
01:22 |
|
behalebabo joined #luanti-dev |
01:40 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
02:03 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
03:01 |
|
SFENCE_arch joined #luanti-dev |
03:21 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
03:59 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
05:00 |
|
MTDiscord joined #luanti-dev |
05:42 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
06:41 |
|
pgimeno joined #luanti-dev |
07:12 |
|
hwpplayer1 joined #luanti-dev |
07:13 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
07:39 |
|
fluxionary joined #luanti-dev |
07:43 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
08:15 |
|
SFENCE joined #luanti-dev |
09:22 |
|
hwpplayer1 joined #luanti-dev |
10:35 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> While we're talking about completion, chat command completion when? |
11:51 |
|
ivanbu joined #luanti-dev |
13:05 |
[MatrxMT] |
<Zughy> When somebody implements it :^] |
13:22 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> when sscsm :juanchi_face: (honestly though, this should be on the client for it to not feel like jank) |
13:23 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> but this should be one of the most straightforward sscsm apis to implement |
13:24 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> Tbh, since chatcommands are in the engine, engine could just send chatcommand autocompletion data to the client. |
13:25 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> There is a player name autocompletion already |
13:28 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> I considered this, but I'm not very fond of implementing rather specific, not very high priority use cases and thus draining development time that should go towards implementing a more general solution. |
13:29 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> Especially since the more general APIs should make the more specific use cases easier to implement. What I'm thinking of is having a "builtin" SSCSM which would use the SSCSM tab completion API to implement this. The builtin SSM would send the chatcommands to that builtin SSCSM via a mod channel. |
13:31 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> At that point, builtin CSCSM |
13:31 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> Why the SS part |
13:32 |
MTDiscord |
<herowl> To accelerate SSCSM development by having it always in place? |
13:32 |
MTDiscord |
<luatic> SS means you don't need the client to upgrade so long as it supports the necessary APIs |
13:57 |
sfan5 |
I would welcome an unflexible "server sends command list to client" implementation for a start |
13:58 |
sfan5 |
but indeed SSCSM is the real fix |
15:18 |
|
SFENCE_arch joined #luanti-dev |
15:26 |
|
hwpplayer1 joined #luanti-dev |
15:33 |
|
hwpplayer1 joined #luanti-dev |
17:10 |
[ |
SS means it won't work for people who care about security/software freedom enough to disable SSCSM |
17:11 |
sfan5 |
acceptable |