The one line message doesn't work because operationally the '%L' doesn't
take effect until after all the rest of the message, which causes the second
'%C' to pick up the first call sign rather than the second call sign. Yes,
I've input this to W5XD on a long list of suggestions. I've either
overloaded his request buffer or maybe he doesn't agree that it is needed
... or, maybe there is a way to do it in one message that I haven't figured
out. ;>)
OTOH, after using the two message method for several long contests now, I
have to say it really isn't a big deal. You do have to tap two Fn keys, but
the second Fn key is the normal Run Exchange message key anyway. So, there
is still only one message key devoted to this TU/NOW function.
Ed - P49X (W0YK)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On
> Behalf Of Dan Karg
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:27 PM
> To: 'RTTY Reflector'
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] Which logger sends "Now <nextcall>..."
>
> Ed,
> As other have pointed out thanks for going over that for us.
> I've tried to understand the call stack a few times and have always kinda
> of given up as it didn't seem to act like I would expect.
> With your information in mind I see why I was always having trouble.
> However I'd like comment on the way the macro's work in Writelog
> (maybe this should go to the Writelog reflector, but the RTTY experts seem
> more vocal over here).
>
> I see you are using 2 macros to make the TU/NOW function work, I've always
> thought that it should work with one, but alas I guess
> the way Writelog handles macros would have to be changed. Lets look at an
> example
>
> One would think that this might work:
>
> %R %C TU, NOW%L %C 599 MN MN %E
>
> Where the first %C would be the call you just worked, and after the %L is
> processed the next %C would be the new call that came from
> the stack as that is what is in the EDIT window now. But of course as the
> evaluation of the macro isn't being done 'live' so to speak you
> end up with the same call being send. Not what I would have expected I
> guess.
>
> The other alternative to this which also doesn't work for the same reasons
>
> %L %R%P1 TU, NOW %C 599 MN MN %E
>
> Have you ever had an discussion with anybody about making it work like
> this ?
>
>
> Dan K0TI
> ________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|