Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone
tsj at unimelb.edu.au
Sun May 9 21:45:47 CDT 2010
On 10/05/10 12:40 PM, "Brian Yennie" <briany at qldlearning.com> wrote:
> Except, if a tool like Rev were generating the code to paste in, it would
> inevitably contain large portions of identical code across projects. Apple
> could easily ban any app that matches those very clear signatures.
This is all getting a bit circular but you could argue that there is nothing
wrong with that given that the core Rev code was all originally written in a
valid language (C or whatever). You'd still have a problem with your own
(translated from Rev to objective-C) code portions though.
>> On May 8, 2010, at 11:28 PM, "J. Landman Gay" <jacque at hyperactivesw.com>
>>> Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
>>>> RevMobile before it seems was going generate c# sources?
>>>> Strange choice as for me.
>>>> Main engine should go to C,
>>>> Some parts of REV project also to C
>>>> And GUI part of REV project to ObjC - Cocoa.
>>> This is forbidden by the new license. There can be no translations. All work
>>> must be created originally by Apple-specified tools.
>> Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app there,
>> there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not written in Xcode.
>> Text is text.
>> I've compared Revtalk and C a little bit and there are some code structures
>> that are so similar translation would be easy (if then, switch). Chunk
>> expressions are an example of something that would not translate, so there
>> would have to be a special set of handlers that split strings and returned
>> items, and in Revtalk you'd need to call these functions rather than using
>> the stock ones to make the C output feasible.
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
More information about the use-livecode