ali.lloyd at livecode.com
Tue Nov 15 16:58:55 EST 2016
Ah yes, I had unthinkingly just corrected the folder parameter to
standaloneSaved, but I will have to do it in the array data for backwards
compatibility I suppose.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:51 PM Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com>
> Ali Lloyd wrote:
> > I was thinking a parameter array would be better than many additional
> > params. That way, additional info is cheap.
> > So currently the proposed params are:
> > - current build platform
> > - current build target/architecture (to disambiguate between 32 bit/64
> > bit/both)
> > - total number of standalones to build
> > - which standalone of the total is being built
> > - build folder
> That all sounds very good to me.
> > Richard, what's the rationale for having the target folder before the
> > standalone is built, considering you get the folder as a parameter to
> > standaloneSaved? It *sort of* strikes me as a recipe for disaster, but
> > that's just a feeling I'm getting.
> I was actually thinking of the other message, standaloneSaved.
> Currently we get an incomplete path, and have to guess what the part
> will be for each OS. Most of the time we can guess correctly, but if
> that ever changes we need to guess again. If we just had the complete
> path to the folder containing the freshly-build executable we'd be done
> with guessing altogether.
> Middle ground: if we kept the partial path as it is now, and added a
> platform param to standaloneSaved as proposed for savingStandalone, and
> if that param was also the exact name of the target subfolder, I'd be
> quite happy.
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World Systems
> Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
> Ambassador at FourthWorld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
More information about the Use-livecode