17 Aug
2017
17 Aug
'17
9:42 a.m.
On 17 August 2017 at 10:30, Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@gmx.at wrote:
Am I the only one seeing a contradiction to what you wrote half an hour ago (below)? Did I miss something?
Well, what I was trying to say (perhaps badly) that if we must "go backwards" for a very good technical reason then we need to communicate this to the user. In an ideal world we'd just be able to write 0..100 then verify 0..100, but in the real worlds we have blocks, erases, retries and all that jazz. So if we do need to handle a "retry" we need a way to map the event to something we can show in the UI to explain what we're doing.
Richard.