Re: Workaround (Binswanger)

["Carl L. Distefano" CLDistefano@xxxxxxxx]

** Reply to note from "..."  Fri, 6 Dec 96 20:09:30 +0000

> ≪ BTW, the procedure can be written more economically as: 
>  	BX,(,d, ,w,f,=,0,),SA,BX,(,d, ,w,f,=,1,) 
> ≫
>  
> Making it a bit less economical, but saving you from yet another instance 
> of xyW4's endlessly second-guessing the user, you can do this, as I did ...
>  
> 	GT,[asc 13],BD,BX,(,d, ,w,f,=,0,),SA,BX,(,d, ,w,f,=,1,) 
>  
> .... to avoid an error msg if you haven't changed anything since 
> the last save. 					--a

"Second-guessing" is in the beholder's eye. "Proceed" isn't an
"error"
message, i.e., it doesn't set a condition of ==TRUE and doesn't
change the current value of . It's a status prompt, bearing
information (though the wording, I'll grant you, could have been more
informative) that III+ doesn't have the built-in intelligence to
convey.

Your modification to avoid a non-error presumes that every time a user
hits the SAve key he intends to write the file to disk, whether or not
anything has changed. That happens to be Xy's first (i.e., earlier)
"guess" about the user's intent, and what III+ stalwarts like yourself
have grown accustomed to. But it's no more sound than the assumption
that most users deploy a SAve to write new information to disk and wish
to avoid unnecessary saves and the concomitant delay and wear-and-tear.
And it's certainly out of line with how most editors I'm familiar with
handle disk-saves.

Even so, Annie, I'm heartened to see that you're coming to appreciate
how readily Xy4 can be made to imitate its predecessor's quirks. ;-)
--C.


--------------
Carl Distefano * * * CLDistefano@xxxxxxxx
--------------