:55685 If I reply to myself, it really should work. And ideally ... shouldn't it not open a new window (particularly if the original message is still visible)
@Benjol yeah, I kinda figured. But I just thought I'd bring it up in case nobody had noticed. The reply-to-self thing (and mention self) is a little buggy.
@Chacha102 I dono -- it makes sense to reply to yourself if you want to resuscitate an old topic -- because that's the easy way to link to it. Otherwise I have to dig out the permalink and get all markdowny on it.
The all-new implicit replies functionality has a quirk.
Hovering over an @Jeff doesn't highlight the previous message
Hovering over an @JeffAtwood does.
I assumed that the difference was to do with incomplete names, but here are some other examples:
@Benjol (full name): works
@Richard (full ...
Incidentally ... I hadn't noticed the highlighting of the original when you reply or use @ for implicit replies. Now that I have, I don't care that clicking the ↱ icon pops open a new window, but I think the highlight should be ... yellower ;)
[Replies explained] *Implicit replies*, if you reply with @Name, the system 'links' your post to the previous post by @Name, which will be highlighted when you rollover your post (buggy). *Explicit replies*, create using gutter/toolarrow->reply to message. These are for linking to an **older** post, and you see a little arrow next to your message, which will link back. PS: If @MarcGravell isn't online here, your best bet is to report bugs on meta. A good convention (in my opinion) is to include the @Name even when you do an explicit reply.
I just noticed that there are two Sandbox rooms. I know the room number is the key, but should the system put up some resistance when someone tries to use a name that already exists?
if I say <at>Someone, what is the algorithm to determine if this is a reply to "Someone"? Does it require a full name? Also, can multiple accounts have the same name?
This in response to your post on that question @MarcGravell
I have a strong suspicion that it isn't working there because it is am ambiguous match... so there have probably been multiple "Nick"s in the discussion. Hence @Nick works as a mention, but it can't make it an unambiguous auto-reply.
Additionally: it will only do an implicit reply if the other p...
Let me give a stab at formulating a rule, pick it apart, tell me why I'm an idiot 1. Since @someone has to mention a complete name, find all accounts that have been active in the room that has the *full* name of "someone" 2. Pick the last one
If you want to add "only make it a reply if the last message of that someone is within X hours", go ahead.
And by "last one", I mean "the account that posted the last message"
So if there's multiple Richard's talking, and there's no way by name to tell them apart, I will just have to specify by using the mouse and replying to specific messages
The all-new implicit replies functionality has a quirk.
Hovering over an @Jeff doesn't highlight the previous message
Hovering over an @JeffAtwood does.
I assumed that the difference was to do with incomplete names, but here are some other examples:
@Benjol (full name): works
@Richard (full ...
