Hi Steve,
I have not yet upgraded to 5.15. It is interesting.
I noticed that "setqtver.cmd" of 0.4a is something wrong and the content
is for "build-hamlib.sh".
73 Yukio
JG1APX
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 01:28:34 +
Stephen VK3SIR wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> As many are aware “patches” that make
Um ... you just got it ... :)
Neil, KN3ILZ
On 8/19/2020 4:44 PM, jbozell wrote:
Well! This seemingly innocuous (but useful) thread has suddenly gotten
much more interesting. Popcorn please...who has the square for the
first person to say “if you don’t like it, scroll down”?
73,
WB0CDY
Hi Folks,
As many are aware “patches” that make the Windows JTSDK 3.1 x64 operate
basically to the same processes and procedures that the well-established JTSDK
3.0 x86 operates to/under have been released to the JTSDK @ GROUPS.IO (i.e.
https://groups.io/g/JTSDK/topics ) JTSDK Tech Group.
I
Hey Kiddies,
Stop. End. I started this based on a genuine observation. Very useful and
productive discussion - learning for many - has occurred. Likewise my intent
has been clearly been established and teased out. There may be further
discussion warranted, but most of what I am seeing is
PLS QSY to PM for any chat or popcorn you must have; I believe this channel
already in use for software development.
TKS 73s
From: jbozell via wsjt-devel
Sent: 19 August 2020 22:44
To: WSJT software development
Cc: jbozell
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] r2.2.2 Minor
Well! This seemingly innocuous (but useful) thread has suddenly gotten much
more interesting. Popcorn please...who has the square for the first person to
say “if you don’t like it, scroll down”?
73,
WB0CDY
From: Paul Randall
Reply-To: WSJT software development
Date: Wednesday, August 19,
Nevertheless, I still find this discussion interesting.
73, Carey, WB4HXE
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 5:20 PM Paul Randall
wrote:
> Actually, NO.
> I've asked stupid questions on here, been pointed at the answer elsewhere
> and regretted my lack of "go find it".
> What I can say is I didn't make
Actually, NO.
I've asked stupid questions on here, been pointed at the answer elsewhere and
regretted my lack of "go find it".
What I can say is I didn't make my questions into a boxed set, to be enjoyed
for a whole season.
If you've nothing better to do it may be a distraction but this forum is
I find the discussion interesting.
73, Carey, WB4HXE
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:42 PM Gary McDuffie wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19, 2020, at 02:21, Stephen VK3SIR wrote:
> >
> >
> >
>
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 02:21, Stephen VK3SIR wrote:
>
>
> --
>
> Why has the stream been decoded (good) and the logic allowed it to be
> identified – displayed - as coming
Claude,
Excellent suggestion. Your method set here at the point of display is the most
efficient and generalist - but will prevent some non-standard but valid calls
getting through. That will help me with some other projects I am working on so
I cannot thank you enough ! For this project,
On 8/19/20 4:12 PM, Neil Zampella wrote:
The logic would need to be able to
distinguish between a valid callsign, and something that LOOKS like a
valid callsign but isn't.
As I have mentioned previously, I'm using the following regex test in perl:
if ( $hash{"CALL"} =~
Since Tx5 is can be used for "Free Text", adding any sort of 'callsign
check' would be hard to implement as anything can, and often is entered
into that message box. The logic would need to be able to
distinguish between a valid callsign, and something that LOOKS like a
valid callsign but
Frode,
All is extremely good and productive; it has been an invigorating and
enlightening discussion. Most of the discussion has been within the Spirit of
HAM – Help All Mankind. ☺
All I have done is have a look at code … and taken a brief look “into the
crystal ball” knowing that “to every
Steve,
My apologies that I hadn't noticed that Reino had already explained the
invalid call sign. I should have read all the messages this morning before
I responded to your e-mail.
I guess that we may wish that the WSJT-X algorithm for identifying the DXCC
entity should have had a checkpoint
Frode and The Community-at-large,
Yes its invalid – the discussion has clearly identified that and I suspected
that at the first post. The community has done a great job in clarifying this
not only just for me but also lots of others.
No more discussion needed on that subject of the callsign
Steve,
The issue with 5CT is that it is not a valid amateur call sign. That
requires a Prefix, a Number and a Suffix. The Prefix must have 1-2
characters of which one character must be a letter. The Suffix can be
longer, but must also have at least one letter.
If 5C is the Prefix (which belongs
17 matches
Mail list logo
