@OS question

[Brian K. White]

Kenneth Brody wrote:
> "Brian K. White" wrote:
> [...]
>>> If: @sn eq "A" and @os eq "UNIX"
>> Then: show  "               \rESC ESC\r  - Save        \r DELETE \r
>> - Exit "
> [...]
>
> Umm...  Why?


Probably the line was written long before \K* show codes were added to
filePro.

Today, you are right, not only does that line not need to say "DELETE" it
probably doesn't even need to test for unix at all, since I bet the only
reason it was testing for unix was so that the prompt could say "DELETE" or
"Ctrl-C". So today, assuming it still needs to test for screen A for some
other reason, it's just:

If: @sn eq "A"
Then: show  "               \KZ  - Save        \KY - Exit "

And some other line nearby that's the same but tests for DOS, should be
removed altogether.

But that is just a nicity, not a breakage that needs to be fixed. I would
not tell the person charged with fixing the test for unix that he also has
to clean up the unecessary show prompts just because there is a slicker way
to do it today than there was in 1994.

Although personally, I probably would do it in all of the examples that are
just like above.

But then again, customers don't see any difference between fixing the lines
fully and just fixing the unix test, other than that if I do it it takes 2
or 3 times longer than if someone else does it who didn't do the extra
clean-up, and it's become a pattern that some customers actually recognze by
now that I "take longer to do stuff" than my co workers, and in the end,
even I have to admit that I can't easily justify the extra time (read extra
$$) to them in any real world way.

Hence: I don't think it's fair to criticize the original line above like
that beyond what I already did.

Brian K. White  --  brian at aljex.com  --  http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx  Linux SCO  Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD  #callahans Satriani