What does "stack was produced by a newer version" mean?

[Mark Schonewille]

Hi Graham,

Could you open your stack in a text editor (TextEdit or NotePad) and see 
if the beginning of the file looks like a stack? It should start with 
something like REV02700 or REVO5500 or something similar.

--
Best regards,

Mark Schonewille

Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer
KvK: 50277553

Use Color Converter to convert CMYK, RGB, RAL, XYZ, H.Lab and other 
colour spaces. http://www.color-converter.com

Buy my new book "Programming LiveCode for the Real Beginner" 
http://qery.us/3fi

Fill out this survey please
http://livecodebeginner.economy-x-talk.com/survey/

On 11/18/2013 17:48, Graham Samuel wrote:
> I have a desktop app I've been developing on a Mac running Lion 10.7.5. I have just switched my LiveCode version to 6.1.3.
>
> Part of my app copies a template stack into an area where it can be manipulated and saved (in fact it's in a folder in the 'Applications Support' area of the Mac library). The copy is just a statement:
>
>     put URL ("binfile:" & tTemplatePath) into URL ("binfile:" & gdataStackPath)
>
> After this is executed, the Mac finder shows the file in place with the expected '.livecode' extension.
>
> Then at some later point in the app's script, I execute:
>
>     go stack gdataStackPath
>
> This has been working for ages. I now have a problem that I may have created myself, but so far I can't find out what I've done wrong: the 'go' command fails to execute, and after investigation I see that 'the result' returns "stack was produced by a newer version", and if I try to open this copied stack directly in LC, by right-click and 'Open with...", I get "unable to open stack: stack is corrupted, check for ~ backup file". Which of these error messages is the right one, and if the first one, what does it mean? I can't see that my innocent 'put URL' can have corrupted the stack, which is not opened until my 'go' command, and therefore not subject to being corrupted.
>
> Can anyone suggest what's wrong? I will continue to look for reasons of course,  but right now I'm stumped.
>
> Graham