[Date Prev][Date Next][Subject Prev][Subject Next][Date Index][Subject Index]
RE: Anyone else needing this U2 updater?
- Subject: RE: Anyone else needing this U2 updater?
- From: "Carl Distefano" cld@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 23:24:38 -0500
Reply to note from "Harry Binswanger" Mon, 2 Jan 2017
> But why fix it if it ain't broke?
I agree. Do what suits you. I was reacting mainly to the suggestion
that your UPDATEU2 frame be included in the standard-issue U2. For that
purpose, I would strive for something more streamlined. But if your
update procedure works for you, go with it.
> So, every week (or more often) I'm Calling whatever file VA$U2
> has, editing it and LH-ing it. So it can't be that that you're
> talking about.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Speaking from bitter experience,
I want to be able to do a standard SAve against my edited U2 without
worrying about trashing the loaded U2.
My U1 idea was more of a devil's advocate suggestion. In principle, it
should work, but the added complexity will put the kibosh on it for
99.9% of users (myself included).