Re: suggestion

[John Sheahan <jrsheahan-at-optushome.com.au>]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 05:19:21AM -0400, robin szemeti wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday 09 October 2002 02:03, Hassan S. Rabe wrote:
> > Hi Ray,
> >
> > have a suggestion at this point...instead of
> > having all the configuration values for all the interfaces steppermod,
> > freqmod, stgmod...etc, in one file.ini, why there won't be a configuration
> > dialogue Box that has several pages, each one of theses pages deal with a
> > certain mode and has all the variables that need to be changed even connect
> > the variables that has some kind of a relationship. 
> 
> umm ..  and if you are trying to modify the .ini on a machine without X ? and 
> if you know what you want to do but cant get the GUI to do it without it 
> upsetting something else? I dislike GUI's for simple tasks such as this.
> 
> Personally I prefer munging the .ini by hand ... Most of the problems arise 
> out of having a 'generic' .ini with half the stuff not used etc etc .. whats 
> really needed is in the emc.ini file  sections such as 
> 
> [INCLUDE steppermod.ini]
> 

as X is needed for emc to run, you can probably assume its there for 
configuration too..

However I think the include suggestion is spot on. 

A gui _could_ be created to edit a boilerplate template if somone feels
inclined,  for those that require gui's.   
done that way, textophiles and guiphiles (??) both get their way. 
john