[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Rethinking the need for CT compatible mode

From: Fred Siegmund
Subject: Re: Rethinking the need for CT compatible mode
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 23:14:36 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0

I use it for the german XMAS contest. As this is a sprint, where you have to leave QRG after CQ, I don't like ESM (and changing between CQ and S&P all the time).

73 Fred

Am 12.01.20 um 19:48 schrieb 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)


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.


73, Nate

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]