How about formulating Jon's suggestion then as follows:
Binary files produced by a version of rexxc can only be run on an
interpreter of the same or
higher language level and the same bitness as the interpreter that
compiling copy of rexxc was
supplied with.
Would that be understandable and correct?
---rony
On 08.03.2020 17:58, Rick McGuire wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 12:50 PM Jon Wolfers <sahana...@gmail.com
> <mailto:sahana...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Rony,
>
> The created binary file is dependent on the Rexx language level and
> the bitness (32 or 64
> bit) of the Rexx interpreter used for creating the binary file. Each
> time the Rexx
> language level gets increased by a new release of Rexx or each time
> you switch the bitness
> of the Rexx interpreter you need to run rexxc again.
>
>
> I think the English in this sentence is great, but I think it approaches
> the situation
> serially. Ie through time you have one language level & bitness
> interpreter and then you move
> to another. Having used ooRexx in a production environment this is not
> always what is going
> on. For much of the time, I had my test machine on a newer release than
> my clients as I was
> testing and making changes to support the upgrade as well as stepwise
> improvements to the
> program suite and coping with changes in the business. Most of my suite
> was deployed
> uncompiled, but for security & license reasons there were some modules
> that needed to be
> compiled. When I upgraded my programs and the language levels I had to
> be mindful to replace
> not only the modules where the source had changed, but also all the
> compiled ones where there
> was a change of interpreter.
>
> I think your sentence is good enough, but wonder if it would be better to
> say something like
>
> Binary files produced by a version of rexxc can only be run on
> (?with?by?) an interpreter of
> the same language level and bitness as the interpreter that compiling
> copy of rexxc was
> supplied with. The language level changes with each release of ooRexx.
>
>
> This is not strictly true. One of the goals with the rewrites I did with this
> release was to try
> to maintain release-to-release compatibility wherever possible. The
> translator keeps track of the
> minimum level needed to execute the image. New features added in releases
> after 5.0 will flag that
> they need a newer release, so the language level in the compiled image is
> tied to the features
> being used, not to the level of interpreter used to compile it. Of course
> currently, the only
> language level is that used by 5.0, but the mechanism is in place to maintain
> that compatibility.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
> what do you think?
>
> Jon
>
> On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 at 16:13, Rony G. Flatscher <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at
> <mailto:rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at>> wrote:
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> thank you very much for your fast feedback!
>
> On 08.03.2020 17:04, Jon Wolfers wrote:
>> I think it reads well, but the last paragraph on the page about
>> rxmigrate needs to be
>> replaced imho.
>>
>> My understanding is that a new version of rexxc is provided with
>> each release and
>> programs compiled with rexxc will only run on the release of the
>> interpreter that they
>> were compiled for. That is my experience - is it correct? If so
>> then I think it would
>> be good to say so.
>
> Hmm, excellent point! Also, one should mention that there is a
> difference between 32- and
> 64-bit images.
>
> How about some text like:
>
> The created binary file is dependent on the Rexx language level
> and the bitness (32 or
> 64 bit) of the Rexx interpreter used for creating the binary
> file. Each time the Rexx
> language level gets increased by a new release of Rexx or each
> time you switch the
> bitness of the Rexx interpreter you need to run rexxc again.
>
> How does that sound?
>
> ---rony
>
>
>> On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 at 15:53, Rony G. Flatscher
>> <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at
>> <mailto:rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at>> wrote:
>>
>> "RFB" is meant to mean "request for feedback"!
>>
>> Changed the rexxpg book in the section "Appendix A. Distributing
>> Programs without
>> Source" (i.e. "rexxc") to reflect changes that have occurred:
>>
>> * It would be great to get brief feedback whether this is
>> understandable the way it
>> is now.
>>
>> * Also, please note that I have changed "RexxC" and "REXXC" to
>> "rexxc" (all in
>> lowercase as one has to enter it on case-dependent operating
>> systems on the
>> command line). To emphasize that one is supposed to write
>> the name as is "rexxc"
>> gets formatted as a computeroutput-element (monotype font,
>> bold). Is that change
>> o.k. with everyone?
>>
>> If that is o.k. I would like to change the names of the Rexx
>> programs in
>> "Appendix B. Sample Rexx Programs" accordingly, i.e. show
>> the names in exact case
>> and as computeroutput-elements to make them stand out in the
>> text.
>>
>> Temporarily "rexxpg.pdf" can be loaded from:
>>
>> <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gxvvgskb04gdsqf/AACRo_ZLeFOdoBXUHroPY_-Ca?dl=0>
>>
>> <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gxvvgskb04gdsqf/AACRo_ZLeFOdoBXUHroPY_-Ca?dl=0>.
>>
>> ---rony
>>
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
