Marty Kraimer wrote:
>
> "Redman, Russell O." wrote:
>
> > Marty, is it worth the bother to back out of the changes you made to add
> > RAWL and RAWF? Or are there enough special cases, and sufficient utility in
> > simulation records to justify retaining RAWL and RAWF?
>
> I would rather back out the changes. They have not appeared in any release thus
> it is easy to do without impacting anyone.
>
> I really really do not like to add fields that have limited usage and can be
> confusing to users. I think RAWF,RAWL fall into this category. It is easy to
> think or additional fields for many record types that can be useful in special
> cases. The number of fields will just grow and grow.
Does this mean that ESLO and EOFF will be made configurable?
Ben
- Replies:
- Re: RAWF, RAWL Marty Kraimer
- References:
- RE: RAWF, RAWL Redman, Russell O.
- Re: RAWF, RAWL Marty Kraimer
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: RAWF, RAWL Marty Kraimer
- Next:
Re: RAWF, RAWL Marty Kraimer
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
<2001>
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: RAWF, RAWL Marty Kraimer
- Next:
Re: RAWF, RAWL Marty Kraimer
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
<2001>
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|