proposal: ignore name pings at the end of a code eval block

[dividinglimits]

I would like for the following to evaluate the code and print the output of "a" (ignoring the name ping at the end)

lorem:
!js const a=1; a @lorem#42

sbot:
`1`

vs

sbot:
``

[w-sellars]

What's the reasoning behind needing to include the name ping inside the code block?

[dividinglimits]

I find it helpful to ping a response to someone for a question they may have asked. If sufficient time has passed and other messages have been going back and forth, I would need to execute the code block, then ping them in a separate line. This may be confusing or simply ignored

name: !py some code block

sbot:
`response`

name: @lorem#423 

As the responder, I would have to add additional context to the "ping" instead of just add it directly to the code block response

[raylu]

I think franz's question is "why support mentioning someone in the codeblock instead of having it outside the block?" I think the parsing would be much simpler if we instead

1. continued treating backtick-less invocations as the whole message is code
2. dropped anything outside of the code block when there are backticks

[dividinglimits]

I thing that's a decent thought, what I have in the PR does both.
Question: I think it's becoming a bit hairy in the single back-tick scenario, such as the following.

name:  !js `const a=1; const dynStr = \`a is equal to ${a}\``; dynStr;

sbot:
 `a is equal to 1`

The parsing would now need an additional look-ahead regex. My PR already introduces re, so may be a non-issue, but something to consider. A mitigation is say that if someone wants to ping someone, they must the full code block (```) syntax.

name: !js `const a=1; a` @person#1234

sbot: 
``

name: !js ```
const a = 1;
a;
``` @person#1234

sbot: 
`1`

[raylu]

I thing that's a decent thought, what I have in the PR does both.

I think we should definitely avoid doing both to simplify the code

A mitigation is say that if someone wants to ping someone, they must the full code block (```) syntax.

yeah, that's my inclination too