Re: [Hamlib-developer] Proposal

[Stephane F. <f4...@fr...>]

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000, Luc Langehegermann wrote:
> 
> I just took a look at the rig.h file, and was a bit suprised to read how you 
> use the mode. Is it not easier use an rig_mode_t and an rig_bandwidth_t? At 

Have you seen how the rmode_t has been simplified? It makes much more
sense (ie. simpler) like this, with a separate bandwidth type.
However, I'm not happy with the proposal I've coded, that is have
rig_set_mode(rig, rmode_t mode) and rig_set_passband(rig, pbwidth_t width)
that would set RIG_PASSBAND_NORMAL/RIG_PASSBAND_NARROW/RIG_PASSBAND_WIDE.

The main reason is because you'll always want to set the passband width
when you set a mode. And that's why most rig control protocols let you
change both with only one command. Therefore, it makes backend 
implementation troublesome. So here's another idea: forget about
rig_set_passband and have rig_set_mode do it all like this:

int rig_set_mode(RIG *rig, rmode_t mode, pbwidth_t width);
int rig_get_mode(RIG *rig, rmode_t *mode, pbwidth_t *width);

what do you think? any drawback in mind?

> least for the USB/LSB modes? I also thing that RTTY is not really clear 
> enough... Some rigs make afsk, others afsk or fsk... Ans how to know if they 
> 
I'm no RTTY guy, anyone is free to make a proposal!

Greetings,
-- 
Stephane