On Sep 24, 2010, at 5:14 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:
...
By removing the offending paragraph in the executionContexts
dictionary entry, RunRev would effectively be making a commitment to
including descriptions of any changes to the value in the engine
revision report for new versions. Or at least apply as much
diligence in doing so as they would for any other property.
I think this is a reasonable thing to ask for.
I, on the other hand, think that reserving the right to make changes
to the format is a good thing. And given that, I think the warning
paragraph in the documentation is to the point: "go ahead and use
this, but note that the format may change in the future". But I do
like your first suggestion, that RunRev bless and document the format.
Since it's the only way to get this information, telling people to use
it seems a bit dodgy, even though it *is* listed in the docs.
Oh, I think reserving the right to make changes is good, too, but
only to the extent that the right to make changes to 'the detail
folders' is reserved. If the format of either of these is changed, a
reasonable effort to document the change and even give warning of the
change should be made.
I give caveats to my customers when I use experimental or explicitly
unsupported features. I'd rather keep that to minimum and prefer
zero such things. (And I minimize use of "discovered" behavior, but
for LiveCode, use of such cannot be avoided.)
I use executionContexts in my scripts but very rarely in delivered
product. It is too messy and distracting to explain that I am using it.
Dar
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
