screens other than 0-9 (was: Re: Windows 2003/IIS 6issues...new and improved ones.)

[Steve Wiltsie]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kenneth Brody" <kenbrody at bestweb.net>
To: "Fairlight" <fairlite at fairlite.com>
Cc: "filePro Mailing List" <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: screens other than 0-9 (was: Re: Windows 2003/IIS 6issues...new 
and improved ones.)


> Quoting Fairlight (Thu, 24 May 2007 09:01:40 -0400):
>
>> On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 08:24:15AM -0400, Kenneth Brody may or may not
>> have proven themselves an utter git by pronouncing:
>> > Quoting Fairlight (Wed, 23 May 2007 17:48:33 -0400):
>> > >
>> > > Yes?  Why shouldn't they be presented?
>> >
>> > Because only 0 through 9 can be selected via the *clerk selection
>> > list.  Others are available from the command line (via "-s") or
>> > from processing (SCREEN, POPUP, etc.).
>>
>> I know they're not presented.  I asked, "Why?"  Answering, "Because
>> they're not presented," is circular logic--"It's not done because
>> it's not done."
>>
>> > Correct.  This has been the case since 1.0 was release in 1983.
>>
>> And nobody ever thought to correct this oversight in 14 years?
>
> What you call an "oversight", we call "a design decision".
>
> Screens 0 through 9 are made available without any programming.
> Lettered and named screens (ie: all but 0 through 9) are only
> available if the developer programs access to them.
>

Exactly - and I have used that feature many times to control access to 
selected screens.  It would be a real problem if all screens were available 
at any time from the 'Enter Selection' prompt because some of them may be 
designed to work only with special input tables or access fields restricted 
from regular users.   Mark, it really is a 'good thing'.

Steve Wiltsie
microCONCEPTS Div. multi/user/inc.        Since 1981
(812) 474-0127                          Fax: (812) 474-0147