Re[2]: %cursor was: Re[2]: (No Subject)
Morning Steve Lamb, My reply to this is a little belated, I guess. I just remembered what I wanted to write ;-) Toggle macros are just like checkboxes. On, off. OTOH, they do take up space[*] unless you tack them onto the end of a line somewhere and then you can't see them. That's just what I do and I have no problem with it :-) But the real issue is also consitency. Actually, a macro in Bat! only makes sense when a certain element has to be placed in a certain position within the message. This is the case with %cursor, %ofromname, %windowsversion etc. but not with information belonging in the To field or subject. So to stay consistent, the following options would be logical from my current POV: - set all information regarding the message in the macro field - the way it is - add additional macro fields for From, To, CC, BCC, Subject. - set all information that does not have to be positioned within the message in seperate entry fields -- +--Jast |on Windows 98 4.10 Build A :with The Bat! 1.36 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: %cursor was: Re[2]: (No Subject)
Morning Steve Lamb, That it would. I like the idea of a template definition, just not sure if I want to fully endorse another template macro which is nothing more than a toggle that is better served, IMHO, by checkboxes on the templates. I prefer template macros. They are more versatile (in regard to usability - you never know what functionality you could add to a macro) and don't take up window space if you don't use it. Really, I don't like long option lists. Of course, macros should be well documented... -- +--Jast |on Windows 98 4.10 Build A :with The Bat! 1.36 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: %cursor was: Re[2]: (No Subject)
Hi Steve, on Tuesday, November 23, 1999, 2:33:19 AM GMT+0800, Steve Lamb wrote: SL Monday, November 22, 1999, 6:15:22 AM, Thomas wrote: You mean a switch like a %SkipHeader macro? SL That would work. I'd actually like to see the current behavior of the SL reply template changed so that it, too, does not skip the header input but SL allow something like this to let the user decide. OK, so by default the cursor should always go into the header, even if there is data (TO/Subject/...) already. Unless there is a %SkipHeader macro. This defines the default as opposite to what I was thinking of, but I get your point. However, what if there is no To recipient but a %SkipHeader macro, should the %SkipHeader macro be ignored? Or how to you suggest to deal with that situation? -- Thanks for expl, Thomas. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.38 Beta/3 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998 on a Pentium II/350 MHz. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
