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 <ha5...@freemail.hu>: > 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) > > 73, > Zoli > > > 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. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > 73, Nate > > -- "Do what is needful!" Ursula LeGuin: Earthsea --
