Bc2000 (for the BCF2000 & BCR2000)

--- In bc2000@yahoogroups.com, "rpcfender" <rpcfender@...> wrote:
> When I wrote my BCL editor I gave the text files the ".bc2" extension.
> This enabled me to distinguish BC files from normal text files and
> doesn't fill up the OpenFile or SaveFile dialogs with other non BC
files.
> 
> Mark decided that he would name them ".txt" files which means that any
> old text editor would be able to pick them up which makes life very
easy. 
> 
> I can see the merit in both views, but I suspect that there may be
> some (perhaps only me) that would like to take the files from Mark's
> editor into my editor (the one I am use to) without stuffing around
> with file extensions (the file list is filtered in the OpenFile dialog
> i both editors) . So I would like to standardise on one or the other.
> 
> What is the general view, .bc2 or .txt or something else.
> 
> I'm happy to change my editor - Mark, of course, doesn't have to
> change his editor.

Sorry about the lag in my response, but I was down with a mild cold
and severe headache for several days. Still reeeellling a bit...

You're absolutely right: it's always a dilemma: "invent" a new
extension or use an existing one. Both have their advantages and
disadvantages.
For BC Manager, my choice to go for the existing ".txt" was indeed 
inspired by the possibility of editing by external text editors.

Actually, last week I had already discovered a bug in BC Manager's 
open/save dialog, which doesn't make life easier: the intention has 
always been to have BC Manager automatically select ".txt" if the 
previously opened file was ".txt", but due to a simple indexing error
BC Manager still chooses ".syx" as the default in that situation. I've 
fixed that now, and while I'm "still on the ball" I'm quite happy to
add ".bc2" as a third option.

BC Manager version 1.3 should be ready in a few days. I'm still
working on a "compare preset" function, a device auto-detection
function, and the additon of a few "Set ..." macros.
So stay tuned...

Mark.