Just a sample of the Echomail archive
Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.
|    MAKENL_NG    |    MakeNL Next Generation.    |    1,725 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 1,242 of 1,725    |
|    Michiel van der Vlist to Andrew Leary    |
|    Trailing comma    |
|    07 Jul 14 13:00:19    |
      Hello Andrew,              On Sunday July 06 2014 19:45, you wrote to me:               MV>> FTS-5000 allows the trailing comma, but does not require it.               AL> Effective with v3.4.4 (committed to CVS today), MakeNL will no longer        AL> add a trailing comma after the baudrate field when there are no flags        AL> listed.              Great!               MV>> I think MAkeNl should not forcefully add a trailing comma. It        MV>> should also not remove it when it is present in the submitted        MV>> segment. It should just pass it "as is" in the case that field        MV>> seven is the last field.               AL> Due to the design of the program, this is difficult to achieve.              OK.               MV>> In Zone 2 we have the odd situation that the R28 segment that I        MV>> edit does not have the trailing comma. When I run it trough        MV>> MakeNl, it adds the comma. I submit it to the ZC, who runs it        MV>> through a filter (ERRFLAGS) that removes the trailing comma. It        MV>> reports it as an error. And then the ZC's MakeNl puts the comma        MV>> back in....               AL> When the 3.4.4 version is released, this situation will be eliminated.              Indeed, so the problem is de facto solved.               AL> I note, however, that FTS-5000 allows the trailing comma, so ErrFlags        AL> is broken if it flags that as an error.              From a purely technical POV I agree.              OTHO, the whole idea of ERFLAGS - frowned upon by some, I know - is to be       stricter than the FTSC. It started as a cleanup filter for frivolous user       flags and it evolved into a general error checker/corrector. But I think this       is not the place tod discus that.               MV>> We could make it an option, but just not touching the trailing        MV>> comma would be fine with me.               AL> The change I have made will no longer add one that is not there, but        AL> it will also strip one that is. Given the number of nodes presently        AL> existing with no flags, I don't see this as a high priority at this        AL> time.              I can live with it. So thanks and keep up the good work. ;-)                     Cheers, Michiel              --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320        * Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca