#CoComm 2.22
15 messages in this thread
Once more through the breach, dear freinds… Well, I didn't _mean_ to do it,
but… here's one more upload of CoComm. Why? Well, besides the obligatory new
features, CoComm 2.21 had what was probably the worst bug of any CoComm version
yet posted; 2.21 would GURU at the slightest provocation doing any one of a
number of things due to a window pointer that was not initialized… sometimes.
This has been fixed, and the program is again stable. In addition to the bug
fix, which was the real reason for this upload, there are some new things here
and there in the program. Most interesting is the addition of subroutine calls,
conditional subroutine calls, implicit returns, and conditional returns to the
macro key command set. These new capabilities are documented in the file
"shortdox" that is in the 2.22 archive. Also, while working with people using
CoComm 2.21 in conference, I realized that the way the review buffer was set up
was not as convenient as it had first appeared to me; accordingly, I added a
STOP and START menu selection so that the review buffer could be toggled
selectively while remaining open. Previously, the only way to stop it was to
close it and lose all the data therein. Not very smart. <blush>. With each
posting, the Error handling within CoComm is enhanced; This is especially
important as CoComm is not a passive terminal program – all the special active
modes make for a lot of potential problem areas, especially when you add in
line noise and other unpredictable comm elements. I'm reasonably happy with
CoComm at this point – as a matter of fact, if it were not for the bug in the
window pointer, I probably wouldn't have been posting at all today. Maybe even
till monday. But…… oh well. I posted CoComm 2.22 to Dl5, as DL4 informed me
that it had exceeded it's quota… again. (Is this my fault?) Hehehe. So…
especially since 2.21 is really not a good deal… Please merge 2.22 into DL4
as CoComm.arc, deleting the previous version? Thanks! –Ben–
Hehe – maybe we should give you your own DL! Listen Ben, you're allowed to
take time out for eating, sleeping etc.. oh,well on my way to DL15…
Thank you, Marlene…. really! <grin>
Actually GreG had already merged it – so what time can we expect the next
upload?
Marlene – I see that the time of your message is 10:14 am…. and that you went
to DL 15 — _and_ that it's not posted now at 19:50 (7:50pm) — I posted it to
DL 5 the message I left had Dl5, which I guess you took to be dl15….
ooops. Sorry about the lower case; I changed the description to warn people not
to DL it, that's all I can do until the new one is merged….. hope you get
this soon. <sigh.> –Ben–
Ben, I downloaded the one from this morning? Is that a good version? It was
already merged, I d/led it from DL4. Marlene
Marlene – 2.21 is the bad version; you need 2.22 – whick I believe is now
merged. If the one you DL'd had 20-odd accesses to it, it's the wrong one.
Select INFO from the Projects menu to see what version you have. And I'm sorry
– I apologise to those who downloaded a busted program. <hanging head> –Ben–
[quivering, shaking, and sweating heavily]
Thanks be! My daily download fix!
CIStem user/downloading fool,
Doug
Doug:
Do your realize that if one downloaded faithfully every version of
CoComm that one would have the most expensive terminal program in the world?! I
only have about 300 Meg of total storage available to me <grin>.
73, bill
Bill, it sure do eat disks! I've been changing DH0: so much, I think I
shall soon invest in Saf-T-Net.
Doug
Doug:
Unlike Bob, I can give an unbiased opinion. Get just a soon as you
possibly can. The peace on mind provided by a couple of backup sets is worth
almost any amount of money. You can also create special sets of backup disks
that contain just certain files from selected directories. It is really a
pretty neat program and fairly flexible. 73, bill
Bill,
I am thinking seriously about buying it soon. However, I never worry
about backups, because I always make backups of backups, ad nauseum. I
would, however, like to reduce the size of the pile of disks I have.
I might even be able to find my old AppleII if the pile shrinks enough.
Thanks,
Doug
Doug:
If you have convoluted directories (like I do) with 'bunches' of files
that get 'little' modifications now and then well…….Saf-T-Net is definately
worthwhile. The fact that it runs unobtrusively whilst you are doing other
useful things and only bugs you for the couple of seconds that it takes to swap
disks is very nice. 73, bill