Re: New XYENC 1/13/09 release

[wbass@xxxxxxxx]

Wally Bass wrote on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:52:20 -0700

>Another possibility is to just say "sorry, you NB folks -- we support you,
>but your "-D" primitive is going to look like "'*D" (or something) under
>XYENC. It'll still encode and decode to the original -- its just going to
>'look wrong'".

>Any opinions on which path to take? I'm inclined to bite the bullet and
>make the change -- we're pretty early on the XYENC path, and we should be
>able to clean out the incompatable history, in my view.

Sorry to respond to my own post, but I changed my mind (unless someone
screams really really loudly). I'm thinking that there's just to much
potential confusion already in creating a data-incompatible set of
XYENC/XYDEC modules.

There is no "D-" primitive, so my plan is to put the NB "-D" primitive
into the XYENC/XYDEC tables as "D-". I just can't imagine that the NB
folks will have difficulty living with the visual reversal of those
characters in an XYENCoding of that primitive (especially since I'm not
even really sure that the primitive is more than a placeholder and has a
meaning, or that there are that many NB XPLers out there).

Wally Bass