Multiple revCursors substacks added to standalone

[Neville Smythe via use-livecode]

For a while now (LC 9.x) I have been finding that making a standalone sometimes 
adds multiple copies of revCursors to the standalone. One copy as a substack of 
the mainstack is expected, but under some unknown circumstances I get 3 more 
copies of the stack added (not as substacks). This on a Mac.

I first thought this occurred when the standalone builder reported errors about 
the ask dialog, but my last build included the extra copies without any 
warnings occurring during the build process.

The source file stack after the build has finished also has these copies of 
revCursors. I discovered this when I added the source stack to 
nsScriptDatabase. But it can also be seen in the Project Browser - a number of 
blank lines occur in the stack list tree, presumably because PB doesn’t like 
the duplicate stack names.

A difficult bug to report to Quality Control without a recipe.

Neville
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Property sheets

[Neville Smythe via use-livecode]

I have uploaded version 2.2 of nsScriptDatabase which can display supported 
properties of widgets, with their current and default values.

There are also some bug fixes so current users should download the new version 
and update their database for those stacks which contain widgets or for which 
the bug fixes are relevant. A link to standalone versions is included in the 
new version.

Neville



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Have we lost the Oracle driver?

[Ben Rubinstein via use-livecode]

I'm attempting to re-up this.

I've been distracted by other issues, but now trying again to use the direct 
Oracle driver, rather than the ODBC one.


I have confirmed that LiveCode is appropriately licensed ("professional" 
rather than "commercial"); and the standalone package contains 
"dboracle.bundle"(on Mac); on Windows the "dboracle.dll" is in the Externals 
folder.


The current situation is that when I attempt this on Mac, I get the error 
message:

'revdberr,invalid database type' (30)


On Windows, the standalone crashes.

Where next...?

TIA,

Ben

On 03/03/2022 17:14, Ben Rubinstein via use-livecode wrote:

Hi Panos,

Alas, that's made no difference.

Does this error message "revdberr,invalid database type" actually indicate a 
failure to load the driver, or can it also occur if the driver was loaded but 
there were issues initialising it, or some other issues connecting to the 
given server and database?


Is there any other detail of errors available anywhere (I looked at the 
Console but there is just a continual tide of reports in that, so I couldn't 
spot anything)?


Thanks again,

Ben

On 03/03/2022 16:23, panagiotis m via use-livecode wrote:

Hello Ben,

I _think_ you just have to create a symlink to this version of the
libclntsh:

1. Open a Terminal
2. Navigate to the instant client directory, e.g. suppose it is in your
Downloads:

cd ~/Downloads/instantclient_11_2

3. Create the symlink:

ln -s libclntsh.dylib.11.1 libclntsh.dylib

Kind regards,
Panos
--

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 15:25, Ben Rubinstein via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:


Hi Panos,

LiveCode 9.6.6 on macOS 10.15.7 (Catalina).

I've downloaded the Oracle stuff but it doesn't seem to have an install
script
- where should I put "libclntsh.dylib.11.1"?

thanks for your help,

Ben

On 02/03/2022 12:58, panagiotis m via use-livecode wrote:

Hello Ben,

I take it you are on MacOS? Which MacOS version, and which LiveCode

version

are you using?

Could it be the case you haven't got the right version of Oracle Instant
Client installed? You need libclntsh.dylib.11.1, found here:


https://download.oracle.com/otn/mac/instantclient/11204/instantclient-basic-macos.x64-11.2.0.4.0.zip 



Kind regards,
Panos
--

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 19:46, Ben Rubinstein via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:


Hi Mark,

Thanks for responding. Indeed 'the revLicenseInfo` returned
"...commercial".
After re-licensing, it now says "...professional" - however, I still

can't

open a connection to an Oracle database.

Re-licensing *did* make a difference: whereas previously it broke into

the

debugger, and (sometimes) displayed the error
   > execution error at line n/a (External handler execution error:
revdberr,driver not licensed for this edition)

now revOpenDatabase simply returns
   > revdberr,invalid database type

So I guess it's not a licensing issue any more, which is good; but I

still

can't get at the database! Can you suggest where my next issue might be?

Many thanks,

Ben

On 01/03/2022 16:08, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:

On 2022-03-01 15:51, Ben Rubinstein via use-livecode wrote:

Hi Matthias,

Good spot! Thanks for checking.

I wonder whether this is an accidental omission, in that Oracle was at
one time only available at a certain higher level of license; maybe
now that there is only level, perhaps someone forgot to tweak whatever
bit of code checked that the 'correct' license was in place?


All business-only features were moved to be part of the pro features

pack -

the oracle driver included.

If it isn't working in your current version of LC, check that the

license you

have licensed LC with does have the pro features pack in it...

If you do `put the revLicenseInfo` it should say professional, rather

than

commercial.

If it doesn't say professional, Relicense your IDE using the menu item

in Help

and flick through the licenses you have available until one says 'pro'

in the

title.

If the revLicenseInfo does say professional then something odd has

happened

somewhere which will need to look into more deeply!

Warmest Regards,

Mark.



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your

subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list

Re: Would anyone miss convertOctals?

[Jerry Jensen via use-livecode]

Wait, I like octal! 
I admit I have not used it since writing a disassembler for the HP-85, which 
nobody but me ever used.
I agree with Ralf - carrots would be just fine.
.Jerry

> On Jun 9, 2022, at 5:44 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> So I'm currently sitting here about to embark on fixing 
>  (which is the final 
> thing to sort out before being able to merge my constant expression patch) 
> and I was reminded of 'convertOctals'.
> 
> Now, generally, I am somewhat averse to actually removing any language 
> feature (even those we have deprecated, unless we absolutely have to!) - 
> however, I would really like to make convertOctals have no effect at all in 
> 10.0+ as it adds a disproportionate amount of complexity compared to (what I 
> think, at least) its utility is (particularly in the context of things 
> 'coming next' like the script compiler).
> 
> So three questions:
> 
>  1) Do you know what convertOctals is, and what it does?
> 
>  2) If you do, have you ever actually used it in any scripts which are 
> actually still in use?
> 
>  3) If you do use it in any scripts which are still in use, would you be 
> willing to change them to not use it?
> 
>  4) If you do use/have used it, had you ever noticed that it has been 
> slightly broken for years?
> 
> Now, its always better to offer a carrot when there is a stick (or in this 
> case, an axe) being wielded and the carrot in this case would be to expand 
> the numeric literal syntax to add both explicit octal and binary number 
> literals alongside hexadecimal:
> 
>0xabcdef - hex literal
>0o777 - octal literal
>0b101110101
> 
> The key difference between 0o777 and using 0777 (with convertOctals true) is 
> that the former is not ambiguous at parse time, it doesn't require a runtime 
> property set to true in order for the engine to convert the string to a 
> number correctly.
> 
> Please let me know your thoughts :)
> 
> Warmest Regards,
> 
> Mark.
> 
> P.S. In the scheme of 'breaking changes' - we've already made a number of 
> them for 10 already, and my gut tells me removing convertOctals is likely to 
> cause less consternation than those we already have - but I could be wrong!
> 
> -- 
> Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
> LiveCode: Everyone can create apps
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Would anyone miss convertOctals?

[Craig Newman via use-livecode]

Mark.

Gong the other way, is your task made much simpler by losing “converOctals”? I 
assume so, or the issue would never have come up. Are there other similar 
language elements that also are on the block?

Craig

> On Jun 9, 2022, at 1:03 PM, Ben Rubinstein via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> 1) No (or didn't until I looked just now)
> 2) N/A
> 3) N/A
> 4) N/A
> 
> 
> On 09/06/2022 13:44, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
>> So I'm currently sitting here about to embark on fixing 
>>  (which is the final 
>> thing to sort out before being able to merge my constant expression patch) 
>> and I was reminded of 'convertOctals'.
>> Now, generally, I am somewhat averse to actually removing any language 
>> feature (even those we have deprecated, unless we absolutely have to!) - 
>> however, I would really like to make convertOctals have no effect at all in 
>> 10.0+ as it adds a disproportionate amount of complexity compared to (what I 
>> think, at least) its utility is (particularly in the context of things 
>> 'coming next' like the script compiler).
>> So three questions:
>>   1) Do you know what convertOctals is, and what it does?
>>   2) If you do, have you ever actually used it in any scripts which are 
>> actually still in use?
>>   3) If you do use it in any scripts which are still in use, would you be 
>> willing to change them to not use it?
>>   4) If you do use/have used it, had you ever noticed that it has been 
>> slightly broken for years?
>> Now, its always better to offer a carrot when there is a stick (or in this 
>> case, an axe) being wielded and the carrot in this case would be to expand 
>> the numeric literal syntax to add both explicit octal and binary number 
>> literals alongside hexadecimal:
>> 0xabcdef - hex literal
>> 0o777 - octal literal
>> 0b101110101
>> The key difference between 0o777 and using 0777 (with convertOctals true) is 
>> that the former is not ambiguous at parse time, it doesn't require a runtime 
>> property set to true in order for the engine to convert the string to a 
>> number correctly.
>> Please let me know your thoughts :)
>> Warmest Regards,
>> Mark.
>> P.S. In the scheme of 'breaking changes' - we've already made a number of 
>> them for 10 already, and my gut tells me removing convertOctals is likely to 
>> cause less consternation than those we already have - but I could be wrong!
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Would anyone miss convertOctals?

[Ben Rubinstein via use-livecode]

1) No (or didn't until I looked just now)
2) N/A
3) N/A
4) N/A


On 09/06/2022 13:44, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
So I'm currently sitting here about to embark on fixing 
 (which is the final thing 
to sort out before being able to merge my constant expression patch) and I was 
reminded of 'convertOctals'.


Now, generally, I am somewhat averse to actually removing any language feature 
(even those we have deprecated, unless we absolutely have to!) - however, I 
would really like to make convertOctals have no effect at all in 10.0+ as it 
adds a disproportionate amount of complexity compared to (what I think, at 
least) its utility is (particularly in the context of things 'coming next' 
like the script compiler).


So three questions:

   1) Do you know what convertOctals is, and what it does?

   2) If you do, have you ever actually used it in any scripts which are 
actually still in use?


   3) If you do use it in any scripts which are still in use, would you be 
willing to change them to not use it?


   4) If you do use/have used it, had you ever noticed that it has been 
slightly broken for years?


Now, its always better to offer a carrot when there is a stick (or in this 
case, an axe) being wielded and the carrot in this case would be to expand the 
numeric literal syntax to add both explicit octal and binary number literals 
alongside hexadecimal:


     0xabcdef - hex literal
     0o777 - octal literal
     0b101110101

The key difference between 0o777 and using 0777 (with convertOctals true) is 
that the former is not ambiguous at parse time, it doesn't require a runtime 
property set to true in order for the engine to convert the string to a number 
correctly.


Please let me know your thoughts :)

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

P.S. In the scheme of 'breaking changes' - we've already made a number of them 
for 10 already, and my gut tells me removing convertOctals is likely to cause 
less consternation than those we already have - but I could be wrong!




___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Would anyone miss convertOctals?

[Brian Milby via use-livecode]

Had to look it up, never used it.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 9, 2022, at 8:45 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> So I'm currently sitting here about to embark on fixing 
>  (which is the final 
> thing to sort out before being able to merge my constant expression patch) 
> and I was reminded of 'convertOctals'.
> 
> Now, generally, I am somewhat averse to actually removing any language 
> feature (even those we have deprecated, unless we absolutely have to!) - 
> however, I would really like to make convertOctals have no effect at all in 
> 10.0+ as it adds a disproportionate amount of complexity compared to (what I 
> think, at least) its utility is (particularly in the context of things 
> 'coming next' like the script compiler).
> 
> So three questions:
> 
>  1) Do you know what convertOctals is, and what it does?
> 
>  2) If you do, have you ever actually used it in any scripts which are 
> actually still in use?
> 
>  3) If you do use it in any scripts which are still in use, would you be 
> willing to change them to not use it?
> 
>  4) If you do use/have used it, had you ever noticed that it has been 
> slightly broken for years?
> 
> Now, its always better to offer a carrot when there is a stick (or in this 
> case, an axe) being wielded and the carrot in this case would be to expand 
> the numeric literal syntax to add both explicit octal and binary number 
> literals alongside hexadecimal:
> 
>0xabcdef - hex literal
>0o777 - octal literal
>0b101110101
> 
> The key difference between 0o777 and using 0777 (with convertOctals true) is 
> that the former is not ambiguous at parse time, it doesn't require a runtime 
> property set to true in order for the engine to convert the string to a 
> number correctly.
> 
> Please let me know your thoughts :)
> 
> Warmest Regards,
> 
> Mark.
> 
> P.S. In the scheme of 'breaking changes' - we've already made a number of 
> them for 10 already, and my gut tells me removing convertOctals is likely to 
> cause less consternation than those we already have - but I could be wrong!
> 
> -- 
> Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
> LiveCode: Everyone can create apps
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Would anyone miss convertOctals?

[Bob Sneidar via use-livecode]

Does it have something to do with eye surgery? 

Bob S


> On Jun 9, 2022, at 05:44 , Mark Waddingham via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> So I'm currently sitting here about to embark on fixing 
>  (which is the final 
> thing to sort out before being able to merge my constant expression patch) 
> and I was reminded of 'convertOctals'.
> 
> Now, generally, I am somewhat averse to actually removing any language 
> feature (even those we have deprecated, unless we absolutely have to!) - 
> however, I would really like to make convertOctals have no effect at all in 
> 10.0+ as it adds a disproportionate amount of complexity compared to (what I 
> think, at least) its utility is (particularly in the context of things 
> 'coming next' like the script compiler).
> 
> So three questions:
> 
>  1) Do you know what convertOctals is, and what it does?
> 
>  2) If you do, have you ever actually used it in any scripts which are 
> actually still in use?
> 
>  3) If you do use it in any scripts which are still in use, would you be 
> willing to change them to not use it?
> 
>  4) If you do use/have used it, had you ever noticed that it has been 
> slightly broken for years?
> 
> Now, its always better to offer a carrot when there is a stick (or in this 
> case, an axe) being wielded and the carrot in this case would be to expand 
> the numeric literal syntax to add both explicit octal and binary number 
> literals alongside hexadecimal:
> 
>0xabcdef - hex literal
>0o777 - octal literal
>0b101110101
> 
> The key difference between 0o777 and using 0777 (with convertOctals true) is 
> that the former is not ambiguous at parse time, it doesn't require a runtime 
> property set to true in order for the engine to convert the string to a 
> number correctly.
> 
> Please let me know your thoughts :)
> 
> Warmest Regards,
> 
> Mark.
> 
> P.S. In the scheme of 'breaking changes' - we've already made a number of 
> them for 10 already, and my gut tells me removing convertOctals is likely to 
> cause less consternation than those we already have - but I could be wrong!
> 
> -- 
> Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
> LiveCode: Everyone can create apps
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Would anyone miss convertOctals?

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 6/9/22 05:44, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
So I'm currently sitting here about to embark on fixing 
 (which is the final 
thing to sort out before being able to merge my constant expression 
patch) and I was reminded of 'convertOctals'.


Wow... we have a convertOctals feature.
I obviously need to spend more time with the dictionary.

--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Would anyone miss convertOctals?

[Devin Asay via use-livecode]

On Jun 9, 2022, at 9:53 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode 
mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>> wrote:

On 2022-06-09 16:33, Devin Asay via use-livecode wrote:
Wait, you said three questions. But no.

What are those two hard problems of computer science again? ;)

I forget, but I’ve encountered all six of them.

:D


--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ 
http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Devin Asay
Office of Digital Humanities
Brigham Young University

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Would anyone miss convertOctals?

[Mark Waddingham via use-livecode]

On 2022-06-09 16:33, Devin Asay via use-livecode wrote:

Wait, you said three questions. But no.


What are those two hard problems of computer science again? ;)

--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Would anyone miss convertOctals?

[Devin Asay via use-livecode]

On Jun 9, 2022, at 6:44 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode 
mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>> wrote:

So I'm currently sitting here about to embark on fixing 
 (which is the final thing 
to sort out before being able to merge my constant expression patch) and I was 
reminded of 'convertOctals'.

Now, generally, I am somewhat averse to actually removing any language feature 
(even those we have deprecated, unless we absolutely have to!) - however, I 
would really like to make convertOctals have no effect at all in 10.0+ as it 
adds a disproportionate amount of complexity compared to (what I think, at 
least) its utility is (particularly in the context of things 'coming next' like 
the script compiler).

So three questions:

 1) Do you know what convertOctals is, and what it does?

Nope

 2) If you do, have you ever actually used it in any scripts which are actually 
still in use?

Nyet

 3) If you do use it in any scripts which are still in use, would you be 
willing to change them to not use it?

N/A

 4) If you do use/have used it, had you ever noticed that it has been slightly 
broken for years?

Wait, you said three questions. But no.

Now, its always better to offer a carrot when there is a stick (or in this 
case, an axe) being wielded and the carrot in this case would be to expand the 
numeric literal syntax to add both explicit octal and binary number literals 
alongside hexadecimal:

   0xabcdef - hex literal
   0o777 - octal literal
   0b101110101

The key difference between 0o777 and using 0777 (with convertOctals true) is 
that the former is not ambiguous at parse time, it doesn't require a runtime 
property set to true in order for the engine to convert the string to a number 
correctly.

Please let me know your thoughts :)

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

P.S. In the scheme of 'breaking changes' - we've already made a number of them 
for 10 already, and my gut tells me removing convertOctals is likely to cause 
less consternation than those we already have - but I could be wrong!

--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ 
http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Devin Asay
Office of Digital Humanities
Brigham Young University

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Would anyone miss convertOctals?

[Craig Newman via use-livecode]

I have never used an octal.

But it well might break legacy handlers of others, however simple it is to 
write a custom function to replicate.

Craig

> On Jun 9, 2022, at 10:37 AM, Paul Dupuis via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Never use octal. pretty much any entries theses days are decimal or 
> hexadecimal. Even binary (bit shifting or masks) is exceedingly rare
> 
> 
> On 6/9/2022 8:44 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
>> So I'm currently sitting here about to embark on fixing 
>>  (which is the final 
>> thing to sort out before being able to merge my constant expression patch) 
>> and I was reminded of 'convertOctals'.
>> 
>> Now, generally, I am somewhat averse to actually removing any language 
>> feature (even those we have deprecated, unless we absolutely have to!) - 
>> however, I would really like to make convertOctals have no effect at all in 
>> 10.0+ as it adds a disproportionate amount of complexity compared to (what I 
>> think, at least) its utility is (particularly in the context of things 
>> 'coming next' like the script compiler).
>> 
>> So three questions:
>> 
>>   1) Do you know what convertOctals is, and what it does?
>> 
>>   2) If you do, have you ever actually used it in any scripts which are 
>> actually still in use?
>> 
>>   3) If you do use it in any scripts which are still in use, would you be 
>> willing to change them to not use it?
>> 
>>   4) If you do use/have used it, had you ever noticed that it has been 
>> slightly broken for years?
>> 
>> Now, its always better to offer a carrot when there is a stick (or in this 
>> case, an axe) being wielded and the carrot in this case would be to expand 
>> the numeric literal syntax to add both explicit octal and binary number 
>> literals alongside hexadecimal:
>> 
>> 0xabcdef - hex literal
>> 0o777 - octal literal
>> 0b101110101
>> 
>> The key difference between 0o777 and using 0777 (with convertOctals true) is 
>> that the former is not ambiguous at parse time, it doesn't require a runtime 
>> property set to true in order for the engine to convert the string to a 
>> number correctly.
>> 
>> Please let me know your thoughts :)
>> 
>> Warmest Regards,
>> 
>> Mark.
>> 
>> P.S. In the scheme of 'breaking changes' - we've already made a number of 
>> them for 10 already, and my gut tells me removing convertOctals is likely to 
>> cause less consternation than those we already have - but I could be wrong!
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Would anyone miss convertOctals?

[Ralf Bitter via use-livecode]

On 09.06.22 14:44, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
So I'm currently sitting here about to embark on fixing 
 (which is the final 
thing to sort out before being able to merge my constant expression 
patch) and I was reminded of 'convertOctals'.


Now, generally, I am somewhat averse to actually removing any language 
feature (even those we have deprecated, unless we absolutely have to!) - 
however, I would really like to make convertOctals have no effect at all 
in 10.0+ as it adds a disproportionate amount of complexity compared to 
(what I think, at least) its utility is (particularly in the context of 
things 'coming next' like the script compiler).


So three questions:

   1) Do you know what convertOctals is, and what it does?


Yes




   2) If you do, have you ever actually used it in any scripts which are 
actually still in use?


Yes, revIgniter uses "convertOctals" and "umask" dealing with access 
permissions of files and folders.




   3) If you do use it in any scripts which are still in use, would you 
be willing to change them to not use it?


Sure, I would exchange them with carrots.



   4) If you do use/have used it, had you ever noticed that it has been 
slightly broken for years?


I have to admit, no.



Now, its always better to offer a carrot when there is a stick (or in 
this case, an axe) being wielded and the carrot in this case would be to 
expand the numeric literal syntax to add both explicit octal and binary 
number literals alongside hexadecimal:


     0xabcdef - hex literal
     0o777 - octal literal
     0b101110101

The key difference between 0o777 and using 0777 (with convertOctals 
true) is that the former is not ambiguous at parse time, it doesn't 
require a runtime property set to true in order for the engine to 
convert the string to a number correctly.


Please let me know your thoughts :)

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

P.S. In the scheme of 'breaking changes' - we've already made a number 
of them for 10 already, and my gut tells me removing convertOctals is 
likely to cause less consternation than those we already have - but I 
could be wrong!




Ralf


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Would anyone miss convertOctals?

[Paul Dupuis via use-livecode]

Never use octal. pretty much any entries theses days are decimal or 
hexadecimal. Even binary (bit shifting or masks) is exceedingly rare



On 6/9/2022 8:44 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
So I'm currently sitting here about to embark on fixing 
 (which is the 
final thing to sort out before being able to merge my constant 
expression patch) and I was reminded of 'convertOctals'.


Now, generally, I am somewhat averse to actually removing any language 
feature (even those we have deprecated, unless we absolutely have to!) 
- however, I would really like to make convertOctals have no effect at 
all in 10.0+ as it adds a disproportionate amount of complexity 
compared to (what I think, at least) its utility is (particularly in 
the context of things 'coming next' like the script compiler).


So three questions:

  1) Do you know what convertOctals is, and what it does?

  2) If you do, have you ever actually used it in any scripts which 
are actually still in use?


  3) If you do use it in any scripts which are still in use, would you 
be willing to change them to not use it?


  4) If you do use/have used it, had you ever noticed that it has been 
slightly broken for years?


Now, its always better to offer a carrot when there is a stick (or in 
this case, an axe) being wielded and the carrot in this case would be 
to expand the numeric literal syntax to add both explicit octal and 
binary number literals alongside hexadecimal:


    0xabcdef - hex literal
    0o777 - octal literal
    0b101110101

The key difference between 0o777 and using 0777 (with convertOctals 
true) is that the former is not ambiguous at parse time, it doesn't 
require a runtime property set to true in order for the engine to 
convert the string to a number correctly.


Please let me know your thoughts :)

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

P.S. In the scheme of 'breaking changes' - we've already made a number 
of them for 10 already, and my gut tells me removing convertOctals is 
likely to cause less consternation than those we already have - but I 
could be wrong!





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Would anyone miss convertOctals?

[Martin Koob via use-livecode]

Hi Mark

> On Jun 9, 2022, at 8:44 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> So I'm currently sitting here about to embark on fixing 
>  > (which is the final 
> thing to sort out before being able to merge my constant expression patch) 
> and I was reminded of 'convertOctals'.
> 
> Now, generally, I am somewhat averse to actually removing any language 
> feature (even those we have deprecated, unless we absolutely have to!) - 
> however, I would really like to make convertOctals have no effect at all in 
> 10.0+ as it adds a disproportionate amount of complexity compared to (what I 
> think, at least) its utility is (particularly in the context of things 
> 'coming next' like the script compiler).
> 
> So three questions:
> 
> 1) Do you know what convertOctals is, and what it does?
Without cheating and checking out the dictionary I have a general idea — my 
guess is… OH if I give my guess and it is right (or wrong) then it ruins your 
poll for everyone after ;-)
You should run this as a web poll of some kind with no peeking at the 
dictionary allowed. :-)
> 
> 2) If you do, have you ever actually used it in any scripts which are 
> actually still in use?
No
> 
> 3) If you do use it in any scripts which are still in use, would you be 
> willing to change them to not use it?
No
> 
> 4) If you do use/have used it, had you ever noticed that it has been slightly 
> broken for years?
No


If convertOctals does go away maybe we can add an ode to the LiveCode poetry 
collection.   I remember there were some haiku’s made several years ago.

Martin

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Would anyone miss convertOctals?

[Mark Smith via use-livecode]

> On 9 Jun 2022, at 1:44 pm, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> So I'm currently sitting here about to embark on fixing 
>  (which is the final 
> thing to sort out before being able to merge my constant expression patch) 
> and I was reminded of 'convertOctals'.
> 
> So three questions:
> 
>  1) Do you know what convertOctals is, and what it does?

No (I guessed it might be converting Octals to Decimals but a quick 
dictionary check indicated nope!)
> 
> P.S. In the scheme of 'breaking changes' - we've already made a number of 
> them for 10 already, and my gut tells me removing convertOctals is likely to 
> cause less consternation than those we already have - but I could be wrong!

Thanks for the section in the Release Notes called Breaking Changes. Very 
useful.

> -- 
> Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
> LiveCode: Everyone can create apps
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Would anyone miss convertOctals?

[Mark Waddingham via use-livecode]

So I'm currently sitting here about to embark on fixing 
 (which is the final 
thing to sort out before being able to merge my constant expression 
patch) and I was reminded of 'convertOctals'.


Now, generally, I am somewhat averse to actually removing any language 
feature (even those we have deprecated, unless we absolutely have to!) - 
however, I would really like to make convertOctals have no effect at all 
in 10.0+ as it adds a disproportionate amount of complexity compared to 
(what I think, at least) its utility is (particularly in the context of 
things 'coming next' like the script compiler).


So three questions:

  1) Do you know what convertOctals is, and what it does?

  2) If you do, have you ever actually used it in any scripts which are 
actually still in use?


  3) If you do use it in any scripts which are still in use, would you 
be willing to change them to not use it?


  4) If you do use/have used it, had you ever noticed that it has been 
slightly broken for years?


Now, its always better to offer a carrot when there is a stick (or in 
this case, an axe) being wielded and the carrot in this case would be to 
expand the numeric literal syntax to add both explicit octal and binary 
number literals alongside hexadecimal:


0xabcdef - hex literal
0o777 - octal literal
0b101110101

The key difference between 0o777 and using 0777 (with convertOctals 
true) is that the former is not ambiguous at parse time, it doesn't 
require a runtime property set to true in order for the engine to 
convert the string to a number correctly.


Please let me know your thoughts :)

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

P.S. In the scheme of 'breaking changes' - we've already made a number 
of them for 10 already, and my gut tells me removing convertOctals is 
likely to cause less consternation than those we already have - but I 
could be wrong!


--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LC 9.6.7 and Applescript

[jbv via use-livecode]

Hello Panos,

I just installed LC 9.6.8 and everything works perfect.
Thank you for your reply.
I guess I should check https://quality.livecode.com more often :)

Best,
jbv


Le 2022-06-09 04:17, panagiotis m via use-livecode a écrit :

Hello jbv,

This sounds like bug 
https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=23576,

which is fixed in LiveCode 9.6.8 rc1.

Cheers,
Panos
--


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LC 9.6.7 and Applescript

[matthias rebbe via use-livecode]

This was fixed in 9.6.8 RC1
see bug report https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=23576

> Am 09.06.2022 um 09:37 schrieb jbv via use-livecode 
> :
> 
> Hi list,
> 
> I am trying to use an old stack made with LC 8.1 community that used to work 
> fine on Mac OSX 10.11.
> Now I am with LC 9.6.7 on OSX 10.15.
> The stack features some AppleScript commands such as :
> tell application "Google Chrome" to set URL of active tab of window 1 to 
> "https://www.domain.com;
> 
> But now I get an execution error in LC 9.6.7, while those commands run fine 
> in the script editor
> utility.
> I am not really familiar with the relationship between LC and AppleScript.
> Where should I look to fix this issue ?
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> jbv
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LC 9.6.7 and Applescript

[panagiotis m via use-livecode]

Hello jbv,

This sounds like bug https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=23576,
which is fixed in LiveCode 9.6.8 rc1.

Cheers,
Panos
--

On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 at 10:38, jbv via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Hi list,
>
> I am trying to use an old stack made with LC 8.1 community that used to
> work fine on Mac OSX 10.11.
> Now I am with LC 9.6.7 on OSX 10.15.
> The stack features some AppleScript commands such as :
>   tell application "Google Chrome" to set URL of active tab of window 1
> to "https://www.domain.com;
>
> But now I get an execution error in LC 9.6.7, while those commands run
> fine in the script editor
> utility.
> I am not really familiar with the relationship between LC and
> AppleScript.
> Where should I look to fix this issue ?
>
> Thank you in advance.
> jbv
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

LC 9.6.7 and Applescript

[jbv via use-livecode]

Hi list,

I am trying to use an old stack made with LC 8.1 community that used to 
work fine on Mac OSX 10.11.

Now I am with LC 9.6.7 on OSX 10.15.
The stack features some AppleScript commands such as :
 tell application "Google Chrome" to set URL of active tab of window 1 
to "https://www.domain.com;


But now I get an execution error in LC 9.6.7, while those commands run 
fine in the script editor

utility.
I am not really familiar with the relationship between LC and 
AppleScript.

Where should I look to fix this issue ?

Thank you in advance.
jbv

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode