savingStandalone message

[Richard Gaskin]

Ben Rubinstein wrote:

 > If you're proposing that the LC IDE maintain a build number for every
 > stack, that might save a bit of effort for some sub-set of the
 > audience which uses build numbers; but for those who for whatever
 > reason use build numbers or similar in some scheme incompatible with
 > the one provided, it might make workarounds more complicated. I
 > certainly wouldn't object to it as an additional feature!

Agreed on both counts:  desirable, but not currently universal enough to 
matter to some.

I've adopted build numbers separate from version numbers years ago. 
Version numbers are useful for communicating change to humans, and build 
numbers provide a simple means of communicating change among automated 
processes.

Many years ago Ken Ray wrote a very comprehensive function for comparing 
version numbers that accommodates a wide range of common schemes, but 
there are always variants, and the schemes he covers require a *lot* of 
code.

For automated processes, hard to beat the simplicity of a single integer 
value.

But I can appreciate that some may not maintain both a version number 
and a build number, and it's not my place to require that they do.

So I'm not opposed to any params sent with a savingStandalone message 
that work well for most folks.  The platform distinction is a must, and 
I'd love to have the destination path, but beyond that I can take care 
of my own needs well enough.

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com                http://www.FourthWorld.com