Anyone know of a way to temporarily comment out a line in a macro? Would like to easily change a macro definition by temporarily commenting out a line and then restoring the definition later by uncommenting it. Didn’t notice it defined anywhere in the manual.

I write a macro that says:?

I think that a hashtag at the beginning of the line is what you are looking for.

<# used for acknowledgement of multilple checkins>

This is a comment line in one of my macros

Hello Leland,

I had prepared this reply while Dave has already answered. I send it anyway because of the examples I just tried out...

There's a simple way to exclude Macro Definition text from being included when running the Macro.

Anything between (and including) the pointed brackets in this 'comment:' definition will be ignored: <comment: any text here within is ignored>


Let's assume you have a Macro Definition as follows (the added dashes indicate, only here in the e-mail, where the Macro Definition and Text Output begins/ends):

- - - - - -
ZCZC
THIS IS A TEST
and yet another line
NNNN
<comment: 1. BlaBlaBla>

ZCZC
THIS IS A TEST
and yet another line
NNNN
<comment: 2. More of the same...>

ZCZC
THIS IS A TEST
and yet another line
NNNN

<comment: 3. final comment: multi-line

Thus these Lines are considered Comments, until the closing pointed bracket (below) is reached:
>

NOW THIS WILL BE PRINTED / USED AGAIN WHEN CALLING THE MACRO...
- - - - - -


=> When you call this Macro, you'll get this:

- - - - - -
ZCZC
THIS IS A TEST
and yet another line
NNNN

ZCZC
THIS IS A TEST
and yet another line
NNNN

ZCZC
THIS IS A TEST
and yet another line
NNNN


NOW THIS WILL BE PRINTED / USED AGAIN WHEN CALLING THE MACRO...
- - - - - -

Note that even multi-line comments are possible, as long as there is no closing pointed bracket '>' within. And any leading/trailing linefeeds around any <comment:..> will also be output by the Macro exactly as specified.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


On a related note, you may not be aware, but you can also invoke several actions 'on the fly', in other words, while the Macro is running:

In the 'Fldigi Users Manual 4.2.00', they are listed in a separate chapter 'Inline Macros'. These include, among others:

<!MODEM: ,...> Change to specified modem (with parameters)
<!GOFREQ:NNNN> Move audio carrier to a specific audio frequency
<!QSY:FFF.F[:NNNN]> Move to specific RF and Audio frequency
<!WAIT:NN> Wait (no audio) for specified number of seconds


Example: similar to the commented definition above, but run a sequence of 3 DigiModes, one per 'message':

- - - - - -
<!MODEM:MFSK16>
ZCZC
THIS IS A TEST
and yet another line
NNNN
<comment: 1. BlaBlabla>

<!MODEM:MFSK32>
ZCZC
THIS IS A TEST
and yet another line
NNNN
<comment: 2. AlbAlbAlb>

<!MODEM:MFSK64>
ZCZC
THIS IS A TEST
and yet another line
NNNN

<comment: 3. final comment: multi-line

Thus these Lines are considered Comments, until the closing pointed bracket (below) is reached:
>

NOW THIS WILL BE PRINTED AGAIN...
- - - - - -


=> When you call this Macro, you'll get this (while the DigiModes are auto-switched as indicated):

- - - - - -
<!MODEM:MFSK16>

ZCZC
THIS IS A TEST
and yet another line
NNNN<!MODEM:MFSK32>

ZCZC
THIS IS A TEST
and yet another line
NNNN<!MODEM:MFSK64>

ZCZC
THIS IS A TEST
and yet another line
NNNN


NOW THIS WILL BE PRINTED AGAIN...
- - - - - -


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Finally, and perfectly in line with the above, if you have a (non-text) actual FLdigi Macro Command you wish to temporarily comment out, precede the Macro Tag within the Macro Definition with 'comment:' as shown here below. This is necessary PER COMMAND LINE, because the Macro Commands include a '>' at the end, which is also interpreted as 'end of comment':

Original (active): <MODEM:RTTY:170:45.45:5>
Comment (inactive): <comment:MODEM:RTTY:170:45.45:5>


Hope this helps.


Best regards

SWL Tobias
.-.-.

Leland,

Two macros, one with and one without would be my approach thus avoiding a macro edit each time a change is needed.? ?Cheers, Phil?

Thanks for all your responses. I appreciate it.

?

The undocumented “<#” is kinda what I had in mind.

?

Leland