Re: Rethinking the need for CT compatible mode

[Thomas Beierlein]

Hi Nate and Zoli,

in last days I checked the mailing list archive and my personal
remarks. As far as I found Nate you were the first one to ask about
the CT mode compatibility in last 5 years. 

So it seems that there is not so much interest in it.

From my point of view I am open for removal. 

73, de Tom DL1JBE

Am Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:39:54
+0100 schrieb Csahok Zoltan <address@hidden>:

> Hi Nate,
> 
> Personally I always use the default TLF mode and quite happy with it.
> Removing CT compatibility is fine with me.
> I didn't quite get the difference between the current and the
> optional new mode, though. (I'm not a regular N1MM user)
> 
> 73,
> Zoli
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 08:27:55PM -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> > I recently did a bit of fixup to the CT compatible mode but I find
> > that its original choice of keystrokes to not be optimal.  As I
> > added support for some keys used in N1MM+ when ESM is disabled, the
> > code became even more convoluted and opaque.
> > 
> > I realized that CT compatible mode had been broken for so long that
> > there really must not be anyone using it, so why keep it?
> > 
> > Removing it would simplify the code in several places.
> > 
> > In its place I would consider adding support for the apostrophe " '
> > " to send the CQ_TU_MSG or S&P_TU_MSG.
> > 
> > I would consider providing a :CFG keyword or keystroke combination
> > to toggle Enter from ESM to a mode where with the call field empty
> > Enter sends MYCALL and otherwise would only log a QSO when both the
> > call and exchange fields are populated depending on validation.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> > 
> > 73, Nate
> >   



-- 
"Do what is needful!"
Ursula LeGuin: Earthsea
--