On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Tony Ringsmuth <[email protected]> wrote:
> My real objection is not the IP variable thing: as stated in other > emails, it’s excluding entire methods, based on any content, and any > sub-content just makes this a terrible implementation in my view. > Tony, You are right in the sense that if 4D document that developer should not use some constructs and he uses them and then gets runtime error, or his method does not works as he intended, it is his and only his problem. On other hand, 4D is aware that such problems would be very difficult to debug and the rules are complex and maybe confusing for some. And as a result, reputation of 4D will suffer. So I understand that 4D want to play it safe. And as other wrote here, to use existing code for preemptive processes may not be a good idea and 4D seems to agree. What means that I do not believe 4D will change these rules. Maybe later, when it will be obvious they make problems and developers will understand programming for preemptive processes well, but currently it does not make much sense. -- Peter Bozek ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:[email protected] **********************************************************************
