On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Kay C Lan
wrote:
> Some people believe the World Trade Centres were a controlled demolition
> perpetrated by the US Gov. No matter how many times you show them videos of
> planes crashing into WTC 1 & 2 they wont change their mind and the theories
> and websites
You're right. Everybody has their own way of working.
I have no reason to doubt they fixed it, considering the detailed
self-validating script I submitted. However, I will most certainly verify
it in my own app when I enhance that app. If it fails for some reason at
that point in time, then the
On 17/03/2015 18:19, TEDennis wrote:
re: Have you submitted it? [the "eof" bug]. If not, do you have a sample
script I might use to verify the issue and submit it for you?
I submitted it, complete with a detailed script/recipe. It was accepted as
a bug, and they [claim to have] fixed it. When
Richard: re: I thought Kay's post lent a welcome balance to the discussion.
Good for you. It's all in perspective. The tone of Kay's post certainly
didn't sound like a "welcome balance" to me. It sounded condescending, so I
responded in kind. Trust me, that was far milder than what I felt lik
TEDennis wrote:
Kay C Lan: Well, I'm glad you got that off your chest. Feel better?
It seems you have an emotional tie to somebody or something at RunRev. It
could simply be that your years of Revolution/LiveCode usage has created a
strong loyalty. Whatever ... It's likely your view is some
Cogent comments, all.
One of the functions of this community, I believe, is to support and encourage
the livecode dev team, and each other. Another equally important function is to
provide honest feedback and a kick in the pants when it seems to be needed. I
love the direction the team is going.
Kay C Lan: Well, I'm glad you got that off your chest. Feel better?
It seems you have an emotional tie to somebody or something at RunRev. It
could simply be that your years of Revolution/LiveCode usage has created a
strong loyalty. Whatever ... It's likely your view is somewhat biased
towards
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:38 AM, TEDennis
wrote:
> Apparently all those references have been wrong. How
> did we ALL (or most of us) get to the point where we thought Unicode was
> the
> culprit?
>
> Probably because LC7 was billed as the Unicode version and it's simple
word association. The fac
re: Does LC6.7.3 not work for you until LC7 performance improves?
I gave up quite a while ago trying to use any version higher than 6.1
because I ran into an intermittent issue with arrays. I don't even remember
what the problem was now, but that same app now works in 7.0.4.
Well, it *almost* w
Bernard: I didn't see the transition in Dr. Brett's discussion to be as black
and white as your interpretation.
re: all the goodness of widgets and the javascript engine and the new "DSL"
language enhancements seem to me to be far more significant than unicode.
Agree 100%, and I am looking forwa
> If
> Unicode is what's behind the performance glitches, then that's most
> certainly not the answer I want to hear. But, life goes on.
This is what I understand the LC engineers are actively working on, so
hopefully there should be some performance improvements in the future. I really
suspect
I think the important part of Peter Brett's answer comes after his remarks
on Unicode:
>>
Internally, the LC7 engine only uses Unicode if it has to. If your
application only uses native strings, then LC7 will only use native
strings. Built-in Unicode support has very little to do with the fact
Paul: Thanks for the response.
I asked: "/Can we turn off that /[Unicode]/ detection, thus eliminating
Unicode processing?/"
You replied: "/No, this has been asked several times on the list, it's part
of the internal processing that LC uses and is too deeply embedded to
eliminate/".
I have been
> No response to my prior post, so let's try this again ...
I'll give some answers as far as I understand LC7 at present, if I get
something wrong no doubt someone will correct me! It wouldn't be the first
time. :)
> Dr Peter Brett wrote: "Internally, the LC7 engine only uses Unicode if it
> ha
No response to my prior post, so let's try this again ...
Dr Peter Brett wrote: "Internally, the LC7 engine only uses Unicode if it
has to. If your application only uses native strings, then LC7 will only
use native strings. Built-in Unicode support has very little to do with the
fact that LC7 i
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Richard Gaskin
wrote:
> I'll keep you posted with any definitive news from them.
>
thanks, Richard
--
Stephen Barncard - Sebastopol Ca. USA - Deeds Not Words
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
stephen barncard wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
>> Is that on Dreamhost, or have you been able to reproduce it on
>> another shared host?
>
> I have a "standby" shared account at Intersever.. thanks to your
> suggestion.
> I am pretty sure I did a test but
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> Is that on Dreamhost, or have you been able to reproduce it on another
> shared host?
I have a "standby" shared account at Intersever.. thanks to your suggestion.
I am pretty sure I did a test but maybe not. thanks for reminding me.
stephen barncard wrote:
"something" make the load time an intolerable one second or more that
wasn't there before in earlier 32 bit versions of LC Server.
Really annoying. This had nothing to do with 'workload'.
Is that on Dreamhost, or have you been able to reproduce it on another
shared host
It should be noted that Gmail incorrectly quoted TED.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:30 PM, stephen barncard <
stephenrevoluti...@barncard.com> wrote:
> Stephen Barncard - Sebastopol Ca. USA - Deeds Not Words
--
Stephen Barncard - Sebastopol Ca. USA - Deeds Not Words
_
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 6:27 AM, TEDennis
wrote:
> re: Internally, the LC7 engine only uses Unicode if it has to. If your
> application only uses native strings,
> then LC7 will only use native strings. Built-in Unicode support has very
> little to do with the fact that LC7 is slower for some
re: Internally, the LC7 engine only uses Unicode if it has to. If your
application only uses native strings,
then LC7 will only use native strings. Built-in Unicode support has very
little to do with the fact that LC7 is slower for some workload
I don't now, and don't intend to, use Unicode.
I
On 2015-03-10 19:41, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Terence Heaford wrote:
Can LC 7 & LC 8 be coded to enable Unicode to be switched “on”/“off”
either globally or on an individual control basis?
Not likely.
Unicode affects all things that deal with strings. That's pretty much
most of the engine.
Terence Heaford wrote:
> Can LC 7 & LC 8 be coded to enable Unicode to be switched “on”/“off”
> either globally or on an individual control basis?
Not likely.
Unicode affects all things that deal with strings. That's pretty much
most of the engine.
Moreover, the refactoring for Unicode wasn
24 matches
Mail list logo
