Unabasheded laziness and the phone edit

[John Esak]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com]On Behalf Of Fairlight
> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 3:34 PM
> To: filePro mailing list
> Subject: Re: Unabasheded laziness and the phone edit
>
>
> 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.

Yes, the more the merrier, it's just that the initial suggestions from you
and Ken don't BREAK or change the final conversion functionality of the
original PHONE edit. FilePro being really careful to not ever clobber
something someone has relied upon, this has to stay the case. So naming a
new phone edit somehhing else and using that like I do with my CANZIP edit
and such would be great. I just reiterate this because I _want_ to change
all dashed phone number like 123-456-7890 to the conventional (123) 456-7890
(allowing for area codes that are correct, of course)... so this new edit
would not be for me.