Ben Rubinstein wrote: > If you're proposing that the LC IDE maintain a build number for every > stack, that might save a bit of effort for some sub-set of the > audience which uses build numbers; but for those who for whatever > reason use build numbers or similar in some scheme incompatible with > the one provided, it might make workarounds more complicated. I > certainly wouldn't object to it as an additional feature!
Agreed on both counts: desirable, but not currently universal enough to matter to some.
I've adopted build numbers separate from version numbers years ago. Version numbers are useful for communicating change to humans, and build numbers provide a simple means of communicating change among automated processes.
Many years ago Ken Ray wrote a very comprehensive function for comparing version numbers that accommodates a wide range of common schemes, but there are always variants, and the schemes he covers require a *lot* of code.
For automated processes, hard to beat the simplicity of a single integer value.
But I can appreciate that some may not maintain both a version number and a build number, and it's not my place to require that they do.
So I'm not opposed to any params sent with a savingStandalone message that work well for most folks. The platform distinction is a must, and I'd love to have the destination path, but beyond that I can take care of my own needs well enough.
-- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Systems Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web ____________________________________________________________________ ambassa...@fourthworld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
