Understood.

Regarding deprecation: JVER assertions might make for clearer (end user) errors.

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:41 AM, bill lam <[email protected]> wrote:
> JVER is a good idea, but we don't have enough resource to support multiple 
> versions.  I imagine most of those addons using wd will either not updated or 
> not migrated to j801.
>
> 11.03.2014, в 18:23, Marc Simpson <[email protected]> написал(а):
>
>> Good point; I hadn't considered the JHS and console cases (sorry). Re:
>> lint, note that in jconsole,
>>
>>     require'debug/lint/lint'
>>  |control error: script
>>  |       3 :0''
>>  |[-31] /applications/j/j64-801/addons/debug/lint/lint.ijs
>>
>> Splitting out the addons seems like a good idea, though that doesn't
>> address local libraries that use similar techniques for determining
>> compatibility. Use of IF* seems a little haphazard; assumptions are
>> made on the basis of a subset of features (Qt, JHS, console, etc.).
>> For example, rdsock.ijs uses IFJ6 is used to determine engine version
>> and load additional libraries accordingly while the conditionals in
>> lint.ijs are used to set IFGUI ahead of loading 'grid'.
>>
>> In place of IFJ6, wouldn't it make more sense to employ a pattern like,
>>
>>  if. JVER = 6 do.
>>
>> where JVER_z_ provides the release number? (This could be a list
>> rather than scalar to provide point release info e.g. 8 0 1).
>> Advantages:
>>
>> - We no longer require nouns like IFJ6; JVER would just be defined in
>> each release;
>> - Libraries (not just official addons) can specify release ranges
>> ("works with 701+") more cleanly;
>> - Depdencies on features provided in a specific release can be
>> expressed with greater structure and safety (if j801, are we running
>> Qt? if not, this code won't load).
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> Best,
>> Marc
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:36 AM, bill lam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> IFAIU starting from J8, previous versions (J7 and J6) need not be
>>> supported in svn trunk.  defining IFJ6 in scripts is not a long term
>>> solution.  IMO the proper solution is to detach J6/J7 addons:
>>> eliminates IFJ6 and release those addons for j801 only.  A consequence
>>> is those addons for J6/J7 will not be updated from svn trunk.
>>>
>>> IFQT=0 for jconsole and JHS in J8, depending on context, it is not a
>>> replacement for IFJ6.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Marc Simpson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I just ran into the following issue with Rserve,
>>>>
>>>>  require'stats/r/rserve'
>>>>  |control error: script
>>>>  | 3 :0''
>>>>  |[-8] /applications/j/j64-801/addons/stats/r/rdsock.ijs
>>>>
>>>> caused by an IFJ6 check on line 2. (IFJ6 is undefined in j801.)
>>>>
>>>> Reference to IFJ6 is made in the following addons,
>>>>
>>>>  debug/lint/lint.ijs                line 25
>>>>  general/dirutils/dirutils.ijs      line 9
>>>>  graphics/plot/demo/plotdemo.ijs    line 6
>>>>  graphics/plot/demo/plotdemos.ijs   line 6
>>>>  stats/r/rdcmd.ijs                  line 2
>>>>  stats/r/rdcom.ijs                  line 2
>>>>  stats/r/rdsock.ijs                 line 2
>>>>
>>>> The lint script is fine as the IFJ6 check only made if -.IFQT. Can the
>>>> rest be amended to do the same?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Marc
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to