Unabasheded laziness and the phone edit

[Fairlight]

At Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 11:23:02AM -0400 or thereabouts, 
suspect John Esak was observed uttering:
> Agreed... It should have always been that 201-337-8009 got converted to
> (201) 337-8009, and always a pain that it didn't. Such a simple little
> addition fixes it and hurts nothing. Mark's addition of 201 337 8009 also
> working is just another bit of frosting on the cake... Why not have the edit
> be that much more robust?  It only takes those few extra characters. I think
> it should go directly into the phone edit of the global table... especially
> because it doesn't affect/effect any workings of anyone's existing code. Put
> it in!

Makes sense.  I'd say the BVPHONE I put up at Bill Vermillion's suggestion
might be rolled in for people who like the dot conventions, possibly as
DTPHON or something.  It works very similarly to my first one, but you can
use dashes, spaces, or dots, and all get translated to dots for display.

Personally, I -hate- the dot syntax, and roll my eyes every time I see it.
I started seeing it more commonly right around the dot-com boom, so I
correlated it mentally with a pretentiousness that's hard to beat.  But
Bill seems to indicate other reasons for it, which I can accept.  I don't
like it, but it could be handy.

> edits are so valuable. The 200 total limit of global/local is actually
> pretty limiting.

So long as we're on limits, there are 26 letters in the alphabet, and
manual indexes use numbers 0-9, so why are the last 10 letters of the
alphabet unavailable for indexes?  I talked to someone just yesterday that
was trying to figure out a workable way around this limitation to gain more
index space.

mark->
-- 
Bring the web-enabling power of OneGate to -your- filePro applications today!

Try the live filePro-based, OneGate-enabled demo at the following URL:
               http://www2.onnik.com/~fairlite/flfssindex.html