14:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> is using `#pragma once` instead of headerguards a bad practice or wathsoever?
14:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> http://prntscr.com/ji4rb0 seems widely supported
14:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> `It is not standard and it is not portable. It injects the hosting machine's filesystem semantics into your program, in addition to locking you down to a vendor. ` hmm
14:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> @Ryozuki it's not standard
14:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> I wouldn't use it
14:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> aslong you dont write for embedded system just use it
14:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> why though?
14:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> because it saves some typing?
14:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> it looks better, it doesnt define anything, and depending on, if your IDE/whatever creates such things when creating the file header, yes it saves typing xd
14:59 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> and it's directly clear what you want.. pragma once = include once
15:01 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> yeah
15:01 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> vistual studio addes them
15:01 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> visual studio addes them
15:01 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> visual studio adds them
15:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> @Jupstar ✪ the other variant (preprocessor defines) also has some upsides. e.g. if you copy a header file, it still works.
15:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> isnt that more an argument for pragma once
15:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> you can just copy files
15:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> xD
15:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> essentially it boils down to "is #include the same a pasting the text there"?
15:05 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> e.g. there are some header libraries that get compiled by concatenating all of their headers
15:05 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> before #pragma once, just copying the header into your program is the same as #including it
15:05 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> not with #pragma once
15:05 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> well sure i sometimes use defines too, especially if i want it to be includuded by a specific file
15:05 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> 
15:05 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> but often you just include
15:07 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> anyway. I don't think one should deviate from the standard just to save typing
15:07 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> i would say the standard just needs an update
15:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> then push for it 😛
15:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> but I don't think it'll go into the standard because it has some unclear semantics
15:09 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> e.g. what happens with symlinks, or hardlinks
15:09 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> suppose one file has `#include <freetype/freetype.h>` and the other has `#include <freetype.h>`
15:10 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> and `/usr/include/freetype` symlinks to `/usr/include`
15:10 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> does the file get included twice? or once? if it has `#pragma once` at the start
15:10 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> once
15:11 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> if the pos is the same
15:11 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> but what does that mean? "pos is the same"?
15:11 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> what happens if you hardlink header files?
15:12 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> well i actually more mean in an absolute path, and for hardlinks it would resolve the pos
15:12 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> the point is that "file identiy" is a not really defined property
15:12 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> hardlinks are just two names for the same file
15:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> there's two "absolute paths" for a hardlink
15:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> e.g. if I hardlink a to b, then afterwards, a and b are completely equivalent
15:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> I can delete b or I can delete a, and the other one will still be ok
15:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> indeed, then i would say the actual pos on hardware if you want xD
15:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> i mean gcc probably solved this havent they
15:14 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> we can look at their approximation 😄
15:14 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> good luck :D
15:14 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> but if you have two different freetype headers, it also doesnt garantuee you to what to use
15:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> i mean with defines
15:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> if they have the same content and were just copied into two places for installation, then the macro solution just works™
15:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> but does that save you anyhting
15:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> if the content is the same anyway
15:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> yes. we won't get duplicate definition errors
15:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> (the reason we have header guards in the first place)
15:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> ah ok, you mean like completly same files ok
15:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> but then i'd say again gcc probably saved this issue
15:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> I doubt that they "solve" this
15:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> this would mean they detect equal contents of source files
15:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> yes
15:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> no
15:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> they just make it unique by some kind of name
15:20 <+bridge> [ddnet] <deen> Header files are stupid anyway, C++ modules ftw: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/Modules.html
15:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> 👍
15:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> anyway, since the STL or something does not garantuee to use the same define for your header, you might want to create a vector.h and define the same definition STL does on some system
15:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> so it's 1:1
15:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> xD
15:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> no, STL isn't allowed to define arbitrary macros
15:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> they have `__identifier` and `_Identifier` reserved for them
15:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> then some libs idc
15:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> this is the same problem as for symbols then
15:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> a library might define `function` and you also want to define `function`
15:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> the idea there is to prefix all your public stuff with your library name
15:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> meh. needs some enforced namespacing!
15:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> ok then other topic, what is your argument for a pointer not be handled as an own datatype in c++, if typdef is possible to be used on it
15:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> thats another thing i dont really like on c++ syntax
15:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> is this a "heinrich5991 must surely like every feature of c++"? 😮
15:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> no, but you seem to like it
15:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> maybe you have arguments i dont know
15:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> like int *a,b;
15:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> 
15:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> since pointers arent an "own" datatype
15:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> (where did I seem like I like c++ particularly in that discussion?)
15:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> i am more refering to teeworlds code now
15:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> i know you like rust or smth
15:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> ^^
15:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> mh. I'm not exactly exactly sure about that one
15:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> it would probably look weird with the other rules concerning variable declarations
15:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> e.g. int (*a), b; is equivalent
15:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> I think
15:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> yup, it is
15:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> i just dislike that this is possible:
15:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> typdef int* int_ptr;
15:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> 
15:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> int_ptr a,b;
15:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> then it seems like you are allowed to make a ptr a datatype
15:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> yup, you are
15:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> it would look weird for arrays if it were to apply to both definitions
15:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> but you can mix arrays and pointers
15:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> `int a[10], b;` would be weird if `b` were an array in that declaration
15:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> but `int (*a)[10], b;` is the way to declare a pointer to an array, and `int (*a), b` is equivalent to `int *a, b` ­– it would be weird if it weren't
15:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> because then the only possible parantheses for `int *a, b;` would change something. hmm.
15:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> maybe one could formulate it in a way that ´(int *)a, b;` were possible (but that looks like a typecast)
15:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> maybe one could formulate it in a way that `(int *)a, b;` were possible (but that looks like a typecast)
15:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> maybe one could formulate it in a way that `(int *)a, b;` was possible (but that looks like a typecast)
15:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> you are right arrays are some kind of a problem, since they are actually just a pointer, except that the compiler can use it as an array too.
15:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> 
15:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> But stilll then i would just forbid array declaration like that, or make it int[] a[10].
15:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> no, arrays are not just a pointer, they have very different semantics
15:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> yes, but only for the compiler
15:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> `struct A { int a[10]; };` is 10 `int`s big, `struct B { int *b; };` is one pointer wide
15:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> sizeof and stuff like that
15:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> no, it's only in the compiler that they're treated somewhat the same, because arrays can decay (be implicitly converted) to pointers to the first element
15:43 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> yeah but what is that in asm? a new operand? the compiler just creates 10 *sizeof(int) bytes rest is up to the user
15:44 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> even if the compiler warns you if you "buffer overflow" it you can do it if you want
15:45 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> in asm, you basically have 10 variables of type width `sizeof(int)`
15:46 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> if you declare a pointer, you have one variable of pointer width, that may point to some memory location containing some `int`s
15:46 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> that's why i said, then it has to be operand int[]. But should be unique as a datatype
15:47 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> mh?
15:47 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> I don't understand your last sentence
15:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> int a[10], b;
15:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> shouldn't be allowed for the same reason pointers can be declared as datatypes
15:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> ah
15:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> that'd be possible
15:49 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> would forbid declaring multiple arrays at once though
15:49 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> why tho? int[] a[10], b[20]
15:49 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> (couldn't do `char aBuf[128], aBuf2[256];`)
15:49 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> oh
15:49 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> you want a different syntax there
15:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> yes, because i don't see a reason this isn't a new datatype
15:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> how would you distinguish `int (*a)[10]` and `int *(a[10])` in your new syntax?
15:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> an array of pointers?
15:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> a pointer to an array vs an array of pointers
15:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> int*[] array of pointer_int, int[]* ptr of an array_int
15:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> there were stars <.<
15:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> `int*[] array of pointer_int, int[]* ptr of an array_int``
15:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> `int*[] array of pointer_int, int[]* ptr of an array_int`
15:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> pretty much reading from left to right
15:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> int_ptr_array
15:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> yea, I think there are languages that do it this way, although they reverse the entire declaration you give
15:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> mhh, probably
15:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> e.g. `x: *const u8` in rust 😛
15:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> for a constant (raw) pointer to a byte
15:55 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> yeah rust is pretty nice, only thing i dislike is this unsafe thing. I just can't imagine, if you are really able to write low level code without this
15:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> I think rust's argument is: you can keep your unsafes isolated in a module
15:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> that it's possible to code in rust can be seen by the fact that firefox includes rust code
15:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> yeah, but on mobile i get many crashes still xD
15:57 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> but since the rust version is out i use firefox alot more, it just runs better than before
15:57 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> if ppl would learn rust instead of java, the world would be a better place, rip
15:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> AFAIK the mobile version doesn't use rust yet
16:00 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> ok, strange that exactly with that update the crashes came
16:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> Well in embedded scenarios C will always shine so why bother with a new language, lets just teach everyone how to code competently in C \o/
16:55 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> well in embedded scenarios ASM will always shine so why bother with a new language, let's just teach everyone how to code competently in C \o/
16:55 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> well in embedded scenarios ASM will always shine so why bother with a new language, let's just teach everyone how to code competently in ASM \o/
17:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> `typdef int* int_ptr;`
17:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> windows api does things like this
17:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> http://prntscr.com/ji7gjn
17:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> ASM shines in nothing silly man, it's just for exotic platforms where there is no libc (albeit there arent many left because C is amazing)
17:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> you and your C fanatism xD
17:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> No libc as in no C implementation before you argue semantics 🙂
17:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> @Ryozuki drink the koolaid join me and Ill show u the way
17:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> show me da way
17:20 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> @Learath2 what you think about dlang
17:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> Is more in the right direction imho but I havent had much chance to experiment with it in an actual project
20:07 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> rust!
20:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <mokuz> rust!
20:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Matodor> C#😳
20:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Henningstone> arnold-c!
20:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> pascal
20:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <deen> Fuchsia C++! https://github.com/fuchsia-mirror/zircon/blob/master/docs/cxx.md
21:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> small question:
21:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> why do i only get max 24 players when i send the SERVERBROWSE_GETINFO_64_LEGACY packet?
21:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> validation of the response:
21:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> ```if ($data === false || $datalen < 15 || substr($data, 0, 15) !== "\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xffdtsf5") {
21:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                             continue 2;
21:15 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                         }```
21:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> parsing of the players
21:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> ```$data = explode("\x00", $data);
21:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                         for ($i = 11; isset($data[$i + 4]); $i += 5) {
21:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                             $player = [];
21:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                             $player['name'] = (string)$data[$i];
21:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                             $player['clan'] = (string)$data[$i + 1];
21:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                             $player['country'] = (int)$data[$i + 2];
21:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                             // $player['countrydata'] = self::getCountry($player['country']);
21:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                             $player['score'] = (int)$data[$i + 3];
21:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                             $player['ingame'] = (bool)$data[$i + 4];
21:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                             $connection[1]['players'][] = $player;
21:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                         }```
21:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> https://i.imgur.com/RghbiUx.png
21:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> ```����������dtsf5```
21:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> since it cancels me the copypaste with the \x00 a screenshot of the data
21:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> https://i.imgur.com/Nb1aXIs.png
21:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> parsing works but I only get max 24 players instead of the currently 29 online players
21:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> parsing works but I only get max 24 players instead of the currently 25(was the same when there were 31 online) online players
21:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> ```                        $data = explode("\x00", $data);
21:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                         for ($i = 11; isset($data[$i + 4]); $i += 5) {
21:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                             $player['name'] = (string)$data[$i];
21:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                             $player['clan'] = (string)$data[$i + 1];
21:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                             $player['country'] = (int)$data[$i + 2];
21:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                             $player['score'] = (int)$data[$i + 3];
21:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                             $player['ingame'] = (bool)$data[$i + 4];
21:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                             $connection[1]['players'][] = $player;
21:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak>                         }```
21:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> why don't you use `SERVERBROWSE_GETINFO_64`? 😛
21:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> ah
21:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> and `SERVERBROWSE_GETINFO_64_LEGACY` only sends 24 players per packet
21:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> you should receive two of them
21:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> reason why legacy:
21:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> https://i.imgur.com/y3XUj8j.png
21:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> there is not one without legacy
21:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> there isn't one without legacy
21:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> send `SERVERBROWSE_GETINFO` with some special bytes in the front, let me check the source
21:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> @DaRealFreak `"xe\0\0\0\0\xff\xff\xff\xffinf3"`
21:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> thanks a lot, the 2nd packet worked too
21:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> https://i.imgur.com/jJ5iHU0.png
21:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> will update it to the default packet with the special bytes nonetheless though xD
21:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> thanks a lot
21:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> @DaRealFreak the good thing about the new packet is that you can send it to all servers. new servers supporting it respond with the new info packet, servers not supporting it respond with the old response
21:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> there are still 2 packets instead of only 1 like from the server not supporting it though or?
21:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> but i don't need a 2nd validation of the data so that's nice xD
21:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> you send this packet I gave you
21:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> if a server supports the new protocol, it will respond with all players in an appropriate number of packets
21:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> ah ok
21:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> if a server doesn't support the new protocol (and likely does not support 64 players), then it will respond with the vanilla response
21:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> yep already figured that out, thanks again^^
21:43 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> but should be xe\0\0\0\0\xff\xff\xff\xffgie3 instead of the xe\0\0\0\0\xff\xff\xff\xffinf3 or?
21:43 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> but should be ```xe\0\0\0\0\xff\xff\xff\xffgie3``` instead of the ```xe\0\0\0\0\xff\xff\xff\xffinf3``` or?
21:46 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> @DaRealFreak https://github.com/timakro/teeworlds-server-info
21:46 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> timakro done this
21:49 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> @DaRealFreak yes
21:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> @Ryozuki directly ignores the spec 😦 `$data = "xe" . $server['_extratoken'] . "xD" . "\xff\xff\xff\xffgie3" . $server['_token'];`
21:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> the `"xD"` is supposed to be `"\0\0"`
21:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> it works
21:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> yes. but it's not forward-compatible
21:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> fordward compatible with what
21:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> with whatever we need next
21:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> 🤦
21:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> we specifically said these bytes are ought to be zeroed
21:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> we specifically said these bytes ought to be zeroed
21:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> "we"
21:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> where
21:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> in the initial PR
21:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> what pr
21:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> that added this info type
21:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> (the code in ddnet also does that)
21:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> well idc
21:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> contact timakro or smth
21:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> or make a pr
21:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> well, or don't recommend that library until someone fixes it
21:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> i will recommend it
21:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> these kind of things make software not work
21:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> like i did right now
21:52 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> these kinds of things are the reason why TLS 1.3 has low adoption
21:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> because someone thought it would be a good idea to only accept TLS <= 1.2
21:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> because that was "all that was out at the time"
21:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> i dont want to sound rude but i dont care
21:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> cool. I care about robust software
21:53 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Matodor> php 💩
21:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> https://github.com/ddnet/ddnet/pull/322
21:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> yeah documentation in a old pr
21:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> and a external repo
21:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> this is good work
21:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> or the reference implementation
21:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> which also does this
21:55 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> a good way to contributing in reliably software
21:55 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> not having docs
21:55 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> well, I wrote some docs and if someone wanted to find them, they would
21:55 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> what I don't really understand either why he is inserting 2 random bytes into the packet though aka his extratoken
21:55 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> you can do that to get a longer token from the ddnet server
21:55 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> you should probably do that
21:55 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> but good to see the structure of the packets, never checked the ddnet code before so got kinda lost in it a bit
21:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> `xe<TWORANDOMBYTES>\0\0\xff\xff\xff\xffinf3`
21:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> @DaRealFreak ^
21:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> ah ok will do that then
21:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> eh.
21:56 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> gie3
21:57 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> evil idea: we could probably get you to care, by dropping info requests with `"xD"` in the bytes that should be zeroed
21:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> go ahead
21:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> 😦
21:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> ❓
21:59 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> you should drop all packets with extra bytes
21:59 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> reliably software
22:00 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> GLSL!
22:00 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Jupstar ✪> MATH
22:01 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> css3
22:17 <+Learath2> Ryozuki, you are why we have bad software :*(
22:18 <+Learath2> @DaRealFreak it takes decades to dig through the mess that is the ddnet/teeworlds source, we spend hours meditating on it just to find where things go
22:19 <+Learath2> heinrich5991: I'd be okay with merging a patch that drops invalid packets
22:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> Learath2: the problem would be that this would defeat the purpose of the forward-compatibility field
22:20 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> 😦
22:23 <+Learath2> i meant just xD :)
22:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> ah also a general question: had the cron task to update all player/server data on 5 minutes before, but like 50% of the servers refused to send me information back, anyone knows the exact number since 10 minutes is kinda meh sometimes
22:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] <DaRealFreak> ah also a general question: had the cron task to update all player/server data on 5 minutes before, but like 50% of the servers refused to send me information back, anyone knows the exact number since 10 minutes is kinda meh sometimes(all servers I've gotten from the master server are sending me the information in 10 minute intervals, 50% refuse it in 5 minute intervals)
22:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> might just be packet loss
22:41 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> Learath2 oh im rly sry then :)
22:41 <+Learath2> no you arer not, you said you don't care :( software terrorist
22:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> :feelsgoodman:
22:43 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> 🔫