Re: New Enter routine

[cld@xxxxxxxx]

Harry:

> I was referring to this:
> "Whoops! Inadvertently omitted the code to Stack commands. Apologies."
> which I interpreted (incorrectly?) as meaning that version omitted code
> pertaining to Stack.

Yes, incorrectly. *That* version (the one accompanying the "Whoops" message) HAS the code
pertaining to Stack; the earlier version was the one that omitted it. Please use the one that HAS
the Stack-related code (the last posted version) EVEN IF YOU DON'T USE STACK. It's intended to apply
to any and all users, whether they are Stack users or not. If you use Stack, the routine invokes
Stack (stacks the command); if you do not use Stack, it does not invoke Stack. That is part of the
functionality I'd like you to test. OK?

> I read all your earlier messages. There is some part of the above that I
> apparently do NOT understand. Wouldn't the key assignment (if it can be
> made to work) precisely do what you say is required: send what the
> spell-checker expects: "a single  from the Enter key." The code there
> tests for whether the spell-checker has highlighted a word, if it has, then
> it sends a single , which I indicated by {13}, to the spell-checker.

You are failing to distinguish between the Enter key's output (func $X) and what func $X does
*after* the Enter key outputs it. The spell-checker is sensitive to Enter key output ONLY; it
expects to receive from the Enter key a particular string, {CrLf} or [13+10] (or one of the
spell-check functions Q1-Q8, or EScape); when it receives a different string, here $X or
[255+130+43], the spell-checker is programmed NOT TO RESPOND. Func $X can put out {CrLf}'s until the
cows come home but the spell-checker will do nothing because it has not received {CrLf} or [13+10]
FROM THE ENTER KEY; what it has received from the Enter key is a 3-byte func $X. The spell-checker
knows NOTHING about func $X beyond the fact that as a string it's different from {CrLf}. Hence, the
spell-checker does nothing; it loops around and waits for one of the functions that it is designed
to respond to.

> What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I don't know how else to communicate it. If you can't grasp what is being communicated, then you'll
just have to take it on faith that the spell-checker "understands" only a limited
repertory of XyWrite functions: Q1-Q8, ES, CrLf. If you respond to the spell-checker with a
keystroke that puts out anything else (e.g., func $X), it will just sit there. As Walter Cronkite
used to say, That's the way it is.

--
Carl Distefano
cld@xxxxxxxx