Pasting images: purity or usability?

[Robert Brenstein]

>Ah yes, the cursor ID issue.  I had held out hope for apparently too 
>long that backward compatibility would ultimately become the higher 
>priority, and that they'd adopt the principle of introducing new 
>cursor images with new IDs in a quick bug-fix release.
>
>But it's been long enough that it seems perhaps time that we all 
>consider updating all of our software to correct for that anomaly, 
>and that would include the MC IDE.
>
>Should we update our cursor resource IDs to match the latest engine? 
>Seems we're moving to a world in which is increasingly difficult to 
>have a single IDE that works with multiple engines (consider libURL 
>too), and thus far I think I've been the only one striving for that 
>anyway.
>
>I don't mind updating those resources if the general mood here is 
>that it's time to do it.

Indeed it seems that RR is sitting this one out, so we can probably 
assume it ain't gonna change back. Otherwise, they would have 
corrected it right away. I just think they are hell bound to 
eliminate the hand cursor.

The only problem I see with fixing this in MC will be backwards 
compatibility with earlier engines.

>"Necessary" is the only question.  We can't determine how long this 
>legacy bug with image pasting will remain in place, so if we want 
>improved behavior it seems more productive to do what we can with 
>what's in hand than wait for an unknowable possibility down the road.
>
>So do we really want this behavior?  I'd find it useful, but I'm not 
>sure if that's a universal desire; maybe some folks like the current 
>behavior (can't imagine it, but HyperCarders sometimes have the 
>strangest habits and this behavior seems to play into the 
>only-one-bitmap HC paradigm).

Would be it plausible for you as the head of the MC IDE group to 
inquire with Kevin directly about their policy/plans regarding such 
engine bugs? Possibly each one should be addressed individually. Then 
we can make an informed decision.

>I'm not clear on why so many engine issues are addressed only in 
>their IDE scripts, but since I work on the MC IDE and neither the 
>engine nor their IDE it wouldn't be productive for me to conjecture. 
>My job is just to get the best results I can with what I have to 
>work with at the moment, and leave the learnability of the Rev IDE 
>to its keepers.

It may be that they decided to pretty much freeze the engine and fix 
all that is possible only in IDE from now on. It probably simplifies 
their development cycle. I would not want to accuse them of malice 
and stabbing MC in its back yet, but it surely starts looking like 
they do little things that will lead to its slow death.

It sure would be nice if some of the things were finalized and we get 
the next formal release of MC IDE out of the door.

Robert