Re[2]: %cursor was: Re[2]: (No Subject)
Morning Steve Lamb, My reply to this is a little belated, I guess. I just remembered what I wanted to write ;-) Toggle macros are just like checkboxes. On, off. OTOH, they do take up space[*] unless you tack them onto the end of a line somewhere and then you can't see them. That's just what I do and I have no problem with it :-) But the real issue is also consitency. Actually, a macro in Bat! only makes sense when a certain element has to be placed in a certain position within the message. This is the case with %cursor, %ofromname, %windowsversion etc. but not with information belonging in the To field or subject. So to stay consistent, the following options would be logical from my current POV: - set all information regarding the message in the macro field - the way it is - add additional macro fields for From, To, CC, BCC, Subject. - set all information that does not have to be positioned within the message in seperate entry fields -- +--Jast |on Windows 98 4.10 Build A :with The Bat! 1.36 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: %cursor was: Re[2]: (No Subject)
Monday, November 22, 1999, 6:47:19 PM, Thomas wrote: OK, so by default the cursor should always go into the header, even if there is data (TO/Subject/...) already. Unless there is a %SkipHeader macro. This defines the default as opposite to what I was thinking of, but I get your point. Just want to reiterate for the general readership, not just for you. The point is that the behavior of the program should be consistent. If in certain cases it places the cursor somewhere it should place the cursor there in other cases, even if the circumstances are slightly different, unless told to do otherwise. This is because even though data is in there it is not readily apparent why the header entry was skipped this time, but not another. However, what if there is no To recipient but a %SkipHeader macro, should the %SkipHeader macro be ignored? Or how to you suggest to deal with that situation? No, if %skipheader is present, skip the header. Consistency. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: %cursor was: Re[2]: (No Subject)
Monday, November 22, 1999, 7:26:01 PM, Paula wrote: I would say that if the user has put a %SkipHeader macro in the template, then TB shouldn't worry about whether or not there is anything entered in the header, unless the intent is to allow the %SkipHeader only if the TO is filled in. I don't see the need for having to ensure that the TO is filled in. Neither do I since the TO field doesn't need to be filled in for a valid message. ;) It would be nice to be able to start in the body. That it would. I like the idea of a template definition, just not sure if I want to fully endorse another template macro which is nothing more than a toggle that is better served, IMHO, by checkboxes on the templates. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: %cursor was: Re[2]: (No Subject)
Morning Steve Lamb, That it would. I like the idea of a template definition, just not sure if I want to fully endorse another template macro which is nothing more than a toggle that is better served, IMHO, by checkboxes on the templates. I prefer template macros. They are more versatile (in regard to usability - you never know what functionality you could add to a macro) and don't take up window space if you don't use it. Really, I don't like long option lists. Of course, macros should be well documented... -- +--Jast |on Windows 98 4.10 Build A :with The Bat! 1.36 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: %cursor was: Re[2]: (No Subject)
Tuesday, November 23, 1999, 2:03:17 PM, Jast wrote: I prefer template macros. They are more versatile (in regard to usability - you never know what functionality you could add to a macro) and don't take up window space if you don't use it. Really, I don't like long option lists. Of course, macros should be well documented... Toggle macros are just like checkboxes. On, off. OTOH, they do take up space[*] unless you tack them onto the end of a line somewhere and then you can't see them. [*] Put %singlere at the top with a CR to make it look decent, you'll note that your messages use the CR. ;) -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[3]: %cursor was: Re[2]: (No Subject)
Hi Jast, on Wednesday, November 24, 1999, 6:03:17 AM GMT+0800, Jast wrote: That it would. I like the idea of a template definition, just not sure if I want to fully endorse another template macro which is nothing more than a toggle that is better served, IMHO, by checkboxes on the templates. J I prefer template macros. They are more versatile (in regard to J usability - you never know what functionality you could add to a J macro) and don't take up window space if you don't use it. Really, I J don't like long option lists. Of course, macros should be well J documented... I think a macro makes sense if you have inoput, such as an email address in the %TO= macro. If a marco is in truth just a yes/no switch, as this %SkipHeader would be, I'd agree with Steve and would prefer it to be a checkbox. Same holds true, by the way, for the %Singlere macro: IMHO it should be a checkbox. -- Best regards, Thomas. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.38 Beta/3 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998 on a Pentium II/350 MHz. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: %cursor was: Re[2]: (No Subject)
Hallo Oleg, On Monday, November 22, 1999, 8:57:38 PM (GMT+0800), Oleg Zalyalov wrote: It has nothing to do with %cursor macro, while is reasonable wish. But I'm afraid it is hardly implementable, while it does work so when you hit reply. PF Well, it would seem that it is implementable, since it works that way PF with Replies. OZ What I meant is that when you do reply the message it is clear that OZ most probably you will not want to add anything to to, cc, bcc and OZ subject fields by hands, and cursor should be placed to the text edit OZ area. When you create a new message or forward it is not so clear. Unless you have already %To (and maybe %Cc and %Bcc) and %Subject macros in your template. OZ Anyway, there should be another independent switch and not the change OZ of %cursor macro functionality. You mean a switch like a %SkipHeader macro? Disclaimer: This is a question, not a suggestion. ;-) -- Cheers, Thomas mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Message reply created with The Bat! 1.38 Beta/2 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998 using an Intel Celeron 366 Mhz, 128MB RAM -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re[2]: %cursor was: Re[2]: (No Subject)
Hi Steve, on Tuesday, November 23, 1999, 2:33:19 AM GMT+0800, Steve Lamb wrote: SL Monday, November 22, 1999, 6:15:22 AM, Thomas wrote: You mean a switch like a %SkipHeader macro? SL That would work. I'd actually like to see the current behavior of the SL reply template changed so that it, too, does not skip the header input but SL allow something like this to let the user decide. OK, so by default the cursor should always go into the header, even if there is data (TO/Subject/...) already. Unless there is a %SkipHeader macro. This defines the default as opposite to what I was thinking of, but I get your point. However, what if there is no To recipient but a %SkipHeader macro, should the %SkipHeader macro be ignored? Or how to you suggest to deal with that situation? -- Thanks for expl, Thomas. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.38 Beta/3 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998 on a Pentium II/350 MHz. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: %cursor was: Re[2]: (No Subject)
On Monday, November 22, 1999, Thomas Fernandez wrote: OK, so by default the cursor should always go into the header, even if there is data (TO/Subject/...) already. Unless there is a %SkipHeader macro. This defines the default as opposite to what I was thinking of, but I get your point. This sounds like a real possibility. :) However, what if there is no To recipient but a %SkipHeader macro, should the %SkipHeader macro be ignored? Or how to you suggest to deal with that situation? I would say that if the user has put a %SkipHeader macro in the template, then TB shouldn't worry about whether or not there is anything entered in the header, unless the intent is to allow the %SkipHeader only if the TO is filled in. I don't see the need for having to ensure that the TO is filled in. I would leave it to the users to use the macro in the appropriate situations. They'll quickly change it if they have to backtrack up the header to fill in TO. I suppose this is a small item in the lexicon of improvements that TB needs, but when you are churning out dozens of messages where all the header information is set in the template, but something has to be added to the body, all that tabbing takes quite a bit of time. It would be nice to be able to start in the body. I agree that the Reply should be consistent, since most of the arguments for why the the cursor should start in the header, such as wanting to add addresses, apply equally to a Reply. However, I now use the Reply template in some cases to skip the header. I wouldn't like to see the Reply made consistent without this %SkipHeader ability. -- Paula Ford The Bat! 1.36 (reg) Windows 95 4.0 Build 950 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
