In reference to the RRR patch that was previously disapproved....what about
making this an option with "Prompt me to log QSO" as a tristate checkbox?
If I make such a patch would it be considered for inclusion? Otherwise I won't
waste my time.
Index:
mainwindow.cpp===================================================================---
mainwindow.cpp (revision 7245)+++ mainwindow.cpp (working copy)@@ -141,7
+141,7 @@ bool message_is_73 (int type, QStringList const& msg_parts) {
return type >= 0- && ((type < 6 && msg_parts.contains ("73"))+ &&
((type < 6 && (msg_parts.contains ("73") || msg_parts.contains ("RRR") ))
|| (type == 6 && !msg_parts.filter ("73").isEmpty ())); }
de Mike W9MDB
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: James Bennett <[email protected]>
To: Black Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Perhaps a noob question on JT65/JT9 QSO messages
Good idea! Sorry it get slammed….
On Oct 26, 2016, at 2:10 PM, Black Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
I have my own patch I use that pops up the log box on RRR. But it was
"disapproved" for inclusion.I find that if I don't have it pop up automatically
I can forget about it.
de Mike W9MDB
From: "James Bennett [email protected] [wsjtgroup]"
<[email protected]>
To: yahoogroups <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [wsjtgroup] Perhaps a noob question on JT65/JT9 QSO messages
Agreed, but…. if one wants the Log QSO box to automatically pop up, it is
triggered by a message with a 73 in it. I nearly always send the RRR and on the
next go-round a TU 73 message. Adds another 60 seconds to the QSO length, but
then again, not in a race! :-)
Jim / W6JHB
On Oct 26, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Black Michael [email protected] [wsjtgroup]
<[email protected]> wrote:
It's intentional.
RRR is the last message needed from the CQ side...the 73 is implied. Just
takes a bit getting used coming from other modes.It's noted in the help file
under "Standard Exchange".
RR73 is a grid (a very unlikely one but a grid nonetheless).
de Mike W9MDB
From: "Björn Ekelund [email protected] [wsjtgroup]"
<[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 8:46 AM
Subject: [wsjtgroup] Perhaps a noob question on JT65/JT9 QSO messages
I am quite new to the JT modes but have found that RR73 is missing from
the predefined WSJT-X messages.
If you send RRR instead the QSO gets 1 minute longer (which is perhaps
not all bad?) if you want both parties to send 73.
Is this intentional? A convention? Or am I just missing something?
Björn SM7IUN
__._,_.___Posted by: James Bennett <[email protected]>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a
New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (2) |
Have you tried the highest rated email app?With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo
Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting
for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one
place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.To
unsubscribe, send an email to:
[email protected] VISIT YOUR GROUP
- New Members 10
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers
Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise?
Reconnect with the command line and become more productive.
Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy!
http://sdm.link/telerik
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
