Re: Rethinking the need for CT compatible mode

[Fred Siegmund]

I use it for the german XMAS contest. As this is a sprint, where you 
have to leave QRG after CQ, I don't like ESM (and changing between CQ 
and S&P all the time).

73 Fred

Am 12.01.20 um 19:48 schrieb Thomas Beierlein:
> 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 <address@hidden>:
>
> > 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
> > >