On 11/10/20 3:28 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
But at the time it seemed to me the tool was for edge cases where one might encounter raw error data with no UI. It never occurred to me to ship an application without error handling, and back then I'd never used LC's so I just assumed it was at least as good as my own.
We shouldn't confuse our own error handling with compiler errors. I include extensive logging and error reporting when "the result" or something similar in my scripts fail. As developers, it's our job to do that.
The cryptic numbers only occur when a compiler error happens. A well-tested stack won't have many of those by the time it's distributed. The one in question here is an odd one-off which only happened for one user.
So it sounds like you're asking LC to translate its compiler errors in standalones. These are infrequent enough for me that the numbers aren't much of a concern; they largely happen during development and those are translated for us. But Paul's suggestion that standalones include the entire error list isn't a bad one, though I'd like it to be optional. Users don't care what the descriptions are and I can look them up, but some might want those included.
-- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.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
