1:29 p.m.
Dear all,
it seems like, the command "fcast" and "fcasterr" cannot be used in
loop mode.
Is there any reason for that, or can that two commands be enabled for loop
mode also?
Btw, I realized this problem for some commands now, that they were not enabled
in loop mode and after my question here on that list, they were enabled in
the next release. Could it be possible to enable really *all* commands for
loop mode, or at least define exactly which commands for sure cannot be used
and enable all the others.
Greetings,
Johannes Fichtinger.
4:40 p.m.
Johannes Fichtinger schrieb:
Dear all,
it seems like, the command "fcast" and "fcasterr" cannot be used in
loop mode.
Is there any reason for that, or can that two commands be enabled for loop
mode also?
I can't answer your question, but I suggest you file a feature request
on the tracker (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=36234) so that
it will not be forgotten. I suspect Allin and Jack are busy preparing
the new release.
Btw, I realized this problem for some commands now, that they were
not enabled
in loop mode and after my question here on that list, they were enabled in
the next release. Could it be possible to enable really *all* commands for
loop mode, or at least define exactly which commands for sure cannot be used
and enable all the others.
I agree that a clear definition would be helpful.
cheers,
sven
7:38 p.m.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Sven Schreiber wrote:
Johannes Fichtinger schrieb:
> Dear all,
>
> it seems like, the command "fcast" and "fcasterr" cannot be used
in loop
> mode. Is there any reason for that, or can that two commands be enabled for
> loop mode also?
>
I can't answer your question, but I suggest you file a feature request on the
tracker (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=36234) so that it will not
be forgotten. I suspect Allin and Jack are busy preparing the new release.
Yeah, that'd be the best thing.
> Btw, I realized this problem for some commands now, that they were not
> enabled in loop mode and after my question here on that list, they were
> enabled in the next release. Could it be possible to enable really *all*
> commands for loop mode, or at least define exactly which commands for sure
> cannot be used and enable all the others.
>
I agree that a clear definition would be helpful.
*cough* ...manual... *cough* ...chapter 9...
Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti
Dipartimento di Economia
Università Politecnica delle Marche
r.lucchetti(a)univpm.it
http://www.econ.univpm.it/lucchetti
8:07 p.m.
Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti schrieb:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Sven Schreiber wrote:
> Johannes Fichtinger schrieb:
>
>
>> Btw, I realized this problem for some commands now, that they were
>> not enabled in loop mode and after my question here on that list,
>> they were enabled in the next release. Could it be possible to
>> enable really *all* commands for loop mode, or at least define
>> exactly which commands for sure cannot be used and enable all the
>> others.
>>
> I agree that a clear definition would be helpful.
*cough* ...manual... *cough* ...chapter 9...
Well, that describes the status quo, but repeatedly it turned out that
that was a little arbitrary in the sense that more commands could be
enabled without any apparent drawbacks. So I think what Johannes and I
have in mind is a systematic search for commands that do no harm in
loops, and to explain why the remaining commands really should not be
enabled.
Maybe we're already at the stage where no further commands are possible
in loops, I simply don't know (and haven't thought much about it).
cheers,
sven
6418
days inactive
6420
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Johannes Fichtinger -
Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti -
Sven Schreiber