Dale said:
>Just how far does he have to go to accommodate the variations?
>It's a shortcut...provided by the software designer. Maybe, at
>some point, the operator should adjust to the software and move
>on.
Dale, you're diminishing Tree to the "it's the thought that counts" school
of amateur programming. If the program is supposed to be superior because
you can type in the exchange without spaces, and this is used as a selling
point, then the software should make good on the claim.
I suggest the software could ALWAYS do this when you type the SS exchange
elements in either 1) the correct order, or 2) the CK-SEC-NR-PREC order
(when TRlog helpfully inserts the check and section in the exchange field).
This represents probably 98% of the QSOs we make, I would guess.
For the record, none of these look remotely like callsigns: 1BN5OT71OK
1B71OK, 71OK1B. I believe there is no reason they should ever wind up
automatically overwriting the callsign field.
The manual says nothing about this "undocumented feature." I would suggest
it should be made to work. If not, then the manual should read "CALLSIGN
UPDATE ENABLE must be set to FALSE to enable this feature."
Jimmy rightly pointed out this is not a problem with the parser. When the
program is about to do the "write in the new call from the exchange field"
routine, it should see if there's digits and letters all mixed up, with one
of them being a single A,B,M,U or S between two digits, and if so perhaps it
could return the "improper synrax" error message and give you a second
chance. This would improve the batting average.
Neither Jimmy nor I are asking for the parser to be improved. It is amazing
already, but I agree with Jimmy that there appears to be substantial
resistance to something the appears to make a lot of sense.
Mark, N5OT
_______________________________________________
Trlog mailing list
Trlog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/trlog
|