Re: Android - Different Builds

For testing we could just do what we do now, since you can distribute to testers privately. I think we'd only need the bundle when submitting to the Play Store. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com On June 14, 2019 10:01:40 PM

Re: Android - Different Builds

From reading a little about it, I’m not sure why not.  Everything besides the engine/splash stack would go in the common bundle (not the right name) and then each engine would have its own slice.  The store would combine the two pieces into the apk for delivery.  We would still need to produce

Re: Android - Different Builds

This is good to know. But what I'd really like to see is the app bundle that the Play Store expects. I wonder if that's possible. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com On June 14, 2019 9:24:24 PM Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami via

Re: Android - Different Builds

Got it, it works... Jerry __ thanks for the chart! "Boy!" this needs to be documented somewhere... BR Jerry wrote So like this for your sequence if your highest used VC is 15 then: BuildVC arm v7a16 >next time --->20>next time--->24

RE: math on widths doesn't add up

You don't need sub-pixels per say but you need to know they exist. I found that out real quick when writing the color gradient math for CGI. If I did not use center pixel coordinates the gradients were "jaggy" so to speak. Ralph DiMola IT Director Evergreen Information Services

Re: math on widths doesn't add up

Sure, I'll agree (SVG notwithstanding). > On Jun 14, 2019, at 5:01 PM, hh via use-livecode > wrote: > > @Dar. > Could we agree that in LC Script we cannot draw subpixels? (I would like > to...) > > And yes, you are right with the invariance of width and height. The number of > pixels >

Re: math on widths doesn't add up

@Dar. Could we agree that in LC Script we cannot draw subpixels? (I would like to...) And yes, you are right with the invariance of width and height. The number of pixels isn't dependent of how I enumerate them. Sorry. > I don't understand why you say "pixel 1". OK. I should say pixel 1

Re: math on widths doesn't add up

For some reason the message below was delayed a while and thus is out of order. Looking back, I see hh has been mentioning things like first pixel and counting pixels. This might be where there is confusion. I was referring to pixels by the LiveCode reference. > On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:13 PM,

Re: math on widths doesn't add up

When we apply math, we must map what we see to our mathematical models. What we see is LiveCode. The application of math is thus an interpretation. (The interpretation of calendar year or how-old-are-you might not apply.) I do agree with you, except for the part that one has to redefine width

Re: math on widths doesn't add up

I tried to avoid the confusion by using the word pixel. I goofed somewhere. I don't understand why you say "pixel 1". Other that that, I think we are saying the same thing. > On Jun 14, 2019, at 3:54 PM, hh via use-livecode > wrote: > > @Dar. > > Probably you wish with your post avoid the

Re: math on widths doesn't add up

When we apply math, we must map what we see to our mathematical models. What we see is LiveCode. The application of math is thus an interpretation. (The interpretation of calendar year or how-old-are-you might not apply.) I do agree with you, except for the part that one has to redefine width

Re: math on widths doesn't add up

@Dar. Probably you wish with your post avoid the confusion between = a math-point (x,y) which has no dimension, so cannot be drawn and = a LC-point (x,y) which is (with a linewidth of 1) in fact a shorthand for the rect (x,y,x+1,y+1)= 1 pixel, which can be drawn. So the LC-point (x,y) is (with

Re: math on widths doesn't add up

This is interestingly the same problem that made a lot of people believe two thousand years were full at the end of 1999/ beginning of 2000. Two thousand years were full at the END of 2000/ beginning of 2001: Full year 1 has the left 0, the right 1 and the width = right-left = 1 year, ..., full

Re: math on widths doesn't add up

I like this interpretation. I don't think it is a popular view, but it makes sense to me. I would change the range wording, though, to something like this: Pixel 0 ranges from 0 to 1. For example, the rect of a card has zeros. Maybe it depends on whether one wants to draw pixels on the

Re: math on widths doesn't add up

Nothing is wrong: If you have a row then left is the integer left of first pixel and right is the integer right of last pixel. So left and right are the integers that limit the object, NOT pixel numbers. As to your example: pixel 1 ranges from 0 to 1, ... pixel 12 ranges from 11 to 12. The left

math on widths doesn't add up

Playing around with a couple of things needing alignment, I’ve noticed that the math on widths and edges isn’t quite right. For example, I have a boundary rect of width 12, with a left of 0 and a right of 12. One of these is wrong . . . a width of 12 would go from 0 to 11; 0 to 12 is 13

Re: one computer, but not other, cannot use breakpoints of any type under 9.5.0_dp1

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 1:13 PM JJS via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > try delete your preferences file and restart LC. > > Thanks. I ultimately did this this morning, but it always seems to take weeks to get things back like aI had them I tried copying the file from the

RE: PlayStore and Tablets

J, Thanks. I'm going to start digging on this... My Customer can't have this. Ralph DiMola IT Director Evergreen Information Services rdim...@evergreeninfo.net -Original Message- From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of J. Landman Gay via

Re: Android - Different Builds

Yes i believe it works so too as Mark says. @BR make sure that for your next release, that when now your highest versioncode is 15 for x86-64 the armv7a starts with 16 that's why i showed you the sequence as example. you need to increase the versioncodes but with the lowest versioncode

Re: PlayStore and Tablets

I see that on almost every app I download on my tablet. It started right around the time Google started requiring the target version to be 26 so I assumed it had to do with that. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com On June

PlayStore and Tablets

When I access the page of my app in Google Play using a tablet I get the following message: "This app may not be optimized for your device" in red. My app resizes to use all of a tablet's real-estate. I uploaded tablet screenshots and use an icon of "xxxhdpi" size. Does anyone know how to

Re: OT - Could someone with an Android phone do me a favour and test my website?

Thanks to all for their reports. So it seems my website is okay and the problem is on the customer´s side. Regards, Matthias Rebbe free tools for Livecoders: https://instamaker.dermattes.de https://winsignhelper.dermattes.de

Re: OT - Could someone with an Android phone do me a favour and test my website?

Looks fine on ASUS. Richmond. On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:14 AM J. Landman Gay via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > All is fine on both my Pixel and Huawei MediaPad m5. > > -- > Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com > HyperActive Software |

Re: Android - Different Builds

On 2019-06-14 00:41, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami via use-livecode wrote: Aloha Jerry, I think I have done it correctly 1) I have the four builds in one release 2) Native platforms -- armeabi-v7a- version code 14 Native platforms -- x86_64 - version code 9 Native