Hi Bill,
Thanks, I have merged your change into the wsjtx_exp branch.
Note that for v1.6.1 we'll want to make further changes. At VHF and
higher it's common to use "OOO" as a signal report, following
longstanding CW practice. Moreover, shorthand messages RO, RRR, and 73
(without callsigns) are often used.
-- Joe
On 11/11/2015 8:20 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
> On 12/11/2015 01:02, Joe Taylor wrote:
>> Hi Bill,
> Hi Joe,
>>
>> Your suggestions sound right. Thanks for thinking about these issues.
> I have committed a change to the development branch which seems to
> address these issues.
>>
>> -- Joe
> 73
> Bill
> G4WJS.
>>
>> On 11/11/2015 7:03 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2015 23:56, Bill Somerville wrote:
>>>> For Tx5 we could generate a "<base-call> <base-call> 73" standard
>>>> message as per the User Guide except for the case where both calls are
>>>> compound where the "<his-full-call> 73" is required as it is the only
>>>> confirmation of the correct call being received possible.
>>> I should clarify here. The above only applies when a type 1 compound c/s
>>> is involved. When replying to a type 2 compound c/s holder the message
>>> "<full-call> 73" would be still be generated as you suggest.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Bill
>>> G4WJS.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
