Interoperability -- Same Name Substacks

[Sarah Reichelt]

On 2/24/06, Scott Kane <scott at proherp.com> wrote:
> I find this discussion interesting.  I know some people
> see the file difference in 2.7 to be a major hurdle.
> However - RunRev are not alone in doing this.  As pointed
> out by some even Hypercard had issues between versions. But
> it's also common on many other platforms including the likes
> of Delphi and Visual Basic (and various flavours of C++).
> Adding functionality to a new version, logically, is going
> to break something, sometime.  With Chipp's stack pretty
> much taking care of the issue (and this is something you
> do *not* see on many other platforms), IMHO the situation
> is moot.  I'm not arguing that problems in 2.7 do or do
> not exist.  Rather I'm saying to improve a product it is
> sometimes necessary to depart from prior formats in order
> to add enhanced functionality.

I agree, although I seem to be in a minority as I also like 2.7 :-)

However looking at the .rev files in a text editor, I see the old
format starts like this:
#!/bin/sh
# MetaCard 2.4 stack
# The following is not ASCII text,
# so now would be a good time to q out of more
exec mc $0 "$@"

while the new one starts like this:
REVO2700

which not only looks more professional, but allows me to determine
what version of Rev was used on this stack.

Cheers,
Sarah

P.S. According to my Dashboard calculator,  Aus 2 cents is only worth
1.5 cents US :-(