Sean wrote: S> ... I hesitated to suggest this ... Yes I too hesistate to suggest any changes to the standard config after all we've been through changing to \ (well not me, but those brave souls who changed their entire config to use \ and \\ and c:/folder instead of c:\folder)
If the esc char in standard config is changed now, some users might tear out some hair, swear, blaspheme, and start frothing at the mouth. Personally, selfishly, not having changed my config, I admit I'd rather either have <null> or a very unusual char for esc. As you say S> "/" as a path delimiter, ?c...c, ESC(...,_esc_) etc reduces, or even totally removes, the need for an escape char. S> What is your opinion? Is it too late? [meaning is it too late for a new poll re the esc char] Here's my silly suggestion: Have a poll about whether we should have a new poll about the esc char. <grin> A more serious suggestion: Personally, I'm not sure about a new poll for such a complicated issue. Although I believe in democracy, the result of the previous poll demonstrated that polls are not the source of all wisdom. We might get a better decision by delegating the decision to an expert panel. For example Bruce and/or Mockey and/or Sean and/or etc could discuss this off list. [ my appologies to anybody not mentioned in that gang of three :-) ] That would save us all from further discussion of the issue here and from any more opinionated messages from writers like me. Then Bruce could announce his decision. Whether or not he first discusses it off list with one or two users of his choice, I bet Bruce would make a wiser decision than another poll would produce. People might vote for the letter e. If so wee would havee to writee likee this. ------------------------------------------------- S> The only trouble seems to be "\+", but I saw "\+" omitted S> in the help file anyway. IMHO, using "\+" (and even using "\n") is not good practice where they can be avoided. I really believe in keeping to one script line = one statement, because it's good for users to think in terms of creating whole legal Statements as the unit of communication to Powerpro. For example we've had a few newby questions asking "should this part go into the Parameters box or into the More Commands box?" which shows they haven't yet got the idea that PP likes to get its instructions one Statement at a time. By "a statement" I mean anything PowerPro will accept as one line in More Commands, or as one line in a script (without \+ or \r), or within one command editing dialog without using More commands. We should meet Powerpro halfway by only talking to it in statements which are delimited (in script files) by real carriage returns. I accept David T's point that \+ is useful in emails because Yahoo splits long lines. You can still use \+ in messages to the group. Anyone who Copy&Pastes that code can Search&Replace every \+^p with nothing. (In many editors, ^p means a real CR) Alan M ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/JV_rlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/power-pro/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
