On 4/2/07, Evan Schoenberg <evan.s@...> wrote:
> The official client is silly to do so; it clearly isn't supposed to be
> an emoticon :)
That's clear for us, because we can understand the context of the
message. What is silly, in my opinion, is the choice of characters.
> It may not make sense for your particular conversation, but then more
> rules would be required to decide if a smiley should be displayed or
> not. What is your suggestion? More rules?
> 'Course, this from the crazy guy
> who has no major problem with a very seriously overengineered solution to
> the problem:
Holy ****. What's next, writing a grammar and using Lex / Yacc? :P
Well, from the code comments:
/* We want to show this emoticon if there is:
* It begins or ends the string
* It is bordered by spaces or line breaks or quotes on both sides
* It is bordered by a period on the left and a space or
line break or quote the right
* It is bordered by emoticons on both sides or by an
emoticon on the left and a period, space, or line break on the right
Ignoring the complexity for something as silly as an emoticon, it
"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting
on what to have for dinner."