Strange contents of long name

[Richard Gaskin]

Peter Haworth wrote:
 > Richard - Thanks for the pointer to the bug report, I will add a note
 > too.  The whole "backwards compatibility" thing is a sorry excuse, at
 > most of the time.  RunRev make changes all the time that cause things
 > to behave differently.

Actually, it's pretty rare that they change the behavior of tokens that 
have been in the language for a long time.  Can you name three examples? 
  I might be able to, but I can't think of that many offhand.   The only 
one that comes to mind was the change to the way messages pass through 
shared groups, but there - as with this one - the change was so 
unquestionably beneficial that it was worth updating my apps to accommodate.

Given the level of angst I hear from Python users ("Should I use v2 or 
v3?"), it seems RunRev does a better job than most in maintaining 
backward compatibility.


 > I guess I'm left with no choice but to chase up the owner hierarchy,
 > at least if I detect that the control name is empty.

You are indeed behind in your emails - Mark Waddingham has already put 
this into the queue to be fixed:

<http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2013-January/181860.html>

Of course that won't affect users of older versions, so your tool may be 
the only case where we have code in the community dependent on the old 
behavior. ;)

Prepare to fork, for the benefit of all future users.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World
  LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
  Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
  Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys