Hi Bill, Thanks, I have merged your change into the wsjtx_exp branch.
Note that for v1.6.1 we'll want to make further changes. At VHF and higher it's common to use "OOO" as a signal report, following longstanding CW practice. Moreover, shorthand messages RO, RRR, and 73 (without callsigns) are often used. -- Joe On 11/11/2015 8:20 PM, Bill Somerville wrote: > On 12/11/2015 01:02, Joe Taylor wrote: >> Hi Bill, > Hi Joe, >> >> Your suggestions sound right. Thanks for thinking about these issues. > I have committed a change to the development branch which seems to > address these issues. >> >> -- Joe > 73 > Bill > G4WJS. >> >> On 11/11/2015 7:03 PM, Bill Somerville wrote: >>> On 11/11/2015 23:56, Bill Somerville wrote: >>>> For Tx5 we could generate a "<base-call> <base-call> 73" standard >>>> message as per the User Guide except for the case where both calls are >>>> compound where the "<his-full-call> 73" is required as it is the only >>>> confirmation of the correct call being received possible. >>> I should clarify here. The above only applies when a type 1 compound c/s >>> is involved. When replying to a type 2 compound c/s holder the message >>> "<full-call> 73" would be still be generated as you suggest. >>> >>> 73 >>> Bill >>> G4WJS. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel