Hi All,
Thinking ahead to the next release ...
I've finally finished up with everything I wanted for ooDialog, so it
is ready to go into a regular beta / release cycle. In addition, Rick
has done a lot with XML. I think those 2 extensions would make a good
base for a next release.
From
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Mark Miesfeld miesf...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Thinking ahead to the next release ...
I've finally finished up with everything I wanted for ooDialog, so it
is ready to go into a regular beta / release cycle. In addition, Rick
has done a lot with XML. I
It depends, Mark.
Does the new ooDialog have any backward compatibility issues? Will
anyone have to touch any of their existing ooDialog routines just
because they need a particular bugfix in ooRexx?
If so, option 3 is preferable. Keep them separate, so a user can get
the latest bugfixes
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Rick McGuire object.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Mark Miesfeld miesf...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Thinking ahead to the next release ...
1.) Put the current ooDialog stuff that is ready in the 4.1 fixes
branch. Do a bug fix +
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Rick McGuire object.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Mark Miesfeld miesf...@gmail.com wrote:
3.) I can do an ooDialog only beta / release independent of the
interpreter. ooDialog would have an installer that drops it into any
4.1.0
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Mark Miesfeld miesf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Rick McGuire object.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Mark Miesfeld miesf...@gmail.com wrote:
3.) I can do an ooDialog only beta / release independent of the
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Chip Davis c...@aviatrexx.com wrote:
Does the new ooDialog have any backward compatibility issues?
That's the big question. I've tried very hard to not break backward
compatibility. But ...
There are 2 areas. One is that there are a few methods that in the
I ran into the problem today because of a small bug in a program I was
working on. It appears we're not leaving enough stack space to be
able process the error message for this condition. I ran into this on
a 64-bit Windows platform, so I think this might be a 64-bit problem.
Windows and *ix use
