On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 at 17:03, Bob Jacobsen <rgj1927@...> wrote:
I disagree. The proposal is for the user values to be an _extra_ match field: they¡¯d _only_ be used when there were duplicates in the address and decoder type.
Given that the program is already doing an arbitrary thing in that case, and that anybody who¡¯s written their basic pane (which is how the address is set) has written their user values, why is this not an improvement?
Bob
> On Jan 6, 2019, at 3:31 AM, whmvd <vandoornw@...> wrote:
>
> The sudden occurrence of 'no match' when there used to be a match in the past will inevitably lead to support requests. A different match: even more opaque.
>
