printer file "name" - problem RESOLVED!!!!!

[Dennis Malen]

Ken,

Thanks for that piece of info concerning the fact that the nocodes printer 
does not have to be defined. I'll test it to see if it works without that 
definition.

There are a number of people on the list that indicated it had to be 
defined. I remember that when I did not define the destination file in the 
printer definition in the printer config that it did not work. That is when 
I was told that I must have it defined and it did work. I even went out of 
my way to thank that person for the info.

Hopefully everyone on the list is reading your comments as many are under a 
misconception concerning this issue.

If you are right, and I will assume you are, that's one less line I need.

As far as your request that I let you know why my processing didn't work as 
it appears to be the same, I don't have an answer. I changed the processing 
so many times after I received a response from the list that I lost track. 
Sorry!!

I will test your suggestion and get back to the list.

Thanks again!

Dennis Malen
516.479.5912

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kenneth Brody" <kenbrody at bestweb.net>
To: "Dennis Malen" <dmalen at malen.com>
Cc: <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: printer file "name" - problem RESOLVED!!!!!


> Quoting Dennis Malen (Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:45:14 -0500):
>
>> Ken,
>>
>> The only thing I can think of is that when I defined nocodes as a
>> printer in
>> filePro that I did not include a destination file. I'm not sure. The
>> processing did not work so I asked the list to comment.
>
> The PRINTER TYPE "nocodes" command in your processing has absolutely
> nothing to do with the filePro printers that you have defined.  The
> only thing that PRINTER TYPE does is set the printer type.  It does
> not use, nor does it even look at, the printers that you have defined.
> There is no need to even have a printer defined with the name "nocodes".
> Creating one, or changing one that is already defined, will have zero
> effect on the PRINTER TYPE "nocodes" statement, and it will have zero
> effect on your processing as a whole.
>
> [...]
>> The more important point is there was a diverse opinion on how the
>> processing should work and a number of people were confused. I wanted to
>> make sure that I clarified the issues I raised and published something
>> that
>> I know works. If anyone had a diiferent approach then I requested they
>> share it with us.
> [...]
>
> The thing is, you now say that it "works", when you haven't made any
> changes to the processing that "didn't work".
>
> --
> KenBrody at BestWeb dot net        spamtrap: <g8ymh8uf001 at sneakemail.com>
> http://www.hvcomputer.com
> http://www.fileProPlus.com
>
>
>