Re: LH vs. SAve

[Carl Distefano cld@xxxxxxxx]

Reply to note from "Robert Holmgren"  Mon, 3
Nov 2008 17:13:22 -0500

Robert:

> Personally, I would modify Carl's routine to run LOADHELP if
> current file is *either* VA$U2 or "Edit_Copy_of_U2_File" --
> instead of checking whether REG Variable "Edit_Copy_of_U2_File"
> is empty or not.

Good point. It didn't even occur to me, because if my LOADed U2 is
displayed on the screen, it usually means that something has gone
terribly wrong -- the last thing I'd want to do is reLOAD (LH) it.
So if I were writing this for myself, I might have the routine do
nothing, or at least ask for confirmation before LH'ing, if the
current file is the LOADed U2.

> And instead of native SA/NV, I do a lot of additional
> "thinking".

Me too -- starting with the call to frame AF if the current file is
Untitled. Some of my "additional thinking" includes SAving certain
key files to multiple locations.

Speaking of native SA/NV, I believe that the only use for the /NV
switch is to avoid a confirmation PRompt when SAving under a new
filename and the new file already exists, as in
SA/NV [d:\path\]newfile.ext. A bare SA/NV (no argument) does
not, as one might think, force a disk write even if the file hasn't
been modified -- hence U2 frame SA/NV. It occurs to me that frame
SA/NV should parallel the native command and permit a new_filename
argument (see below; note that framename SANV [no "/"] does not
allow this usage).

XPLeNCODE v2.0
b-gin [UNTITLED]
{{;5sa/nv,sanv}} SAve absolute. Force disk-write even if file
 not modified [CLD rev.11/3/08][cr|lf]{002}{<}IF{<}VA$WS{>}==
1{>}[GT_]{<}SV01,{>}{<}GT01{>}[BX_]sa/nv{<}IF{<}VA|50{>}>0&{<
}VA$FR{>}{240}"/"{>} {<}PV50{>}{<}EI{>}[Q2_][BX_]wait[Q2_]{<}
EI{>}{002}[cr|lf]
-nd
XPLeNCODE

--
Carl Distefano
cld@xxxxxxxx