The rerun of this thread makes me wonder if the contest sponsors:
1. Are truly "living in a cave" and do not realize that some modern
practitioners, who want to use multiple everything to be more competitive,
are constantly aggravated by notion of a single sequential (no gap) serial
number to be sent and logged.
or are these same sponsors
2. Surreptitiously putting roadblocks on the way of single op multi multi
configurations.
Hmmm...
Ed, will your TRS80 program run from cassette?
73, George .. W1ZT
At 03:25 PM 7/24/2005, K4SB wrote:
>kd4d@comcast.net wrote:
> > Unfortunately, WAE DOES require sequential serial numbers between
> > the main (run) and multiplier stations. They also don't accept
> > serial numbers by band. So, this is not a non-existent problem! :-(
>------------
>Please keep in mind that I wrote contest programs on a Trash 80 back
>from 78 to 80.
>All in pure machine language, using a compiler of course. And my dupe
>algorithm on a
>1.8 mHz machine will still beat the snot out of any current program.
>And yes, it is
>patented, copy writed, and ever thing else.
>
>There are 2 solutions to the WAE problem. A program which will sort
>the log by serial number is the more simple, and easy.
>
>However, should Wayne wish to work on the problem within WL, it would
>seem the most
>logical approach is to set aside a 2 byte buffer which holds the
>serial number in
>binary format. Now, using perhaps the "log the contact key", whichever
>computer is selected gets that serial number, the number is
>incremented by one, and so on. This also
>requires that a "master" log be kept on the "run" computer.
>
>But, as I said, combining the logs and then sorting by serial number
>is much more simple. Especially when only WAE is involved.
>
>73
>Ed
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
|