Re: Rethinking the need for CT compatible mode

[Csahok Zoltan]

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
>