Writing Extensions

Mark Waddingham mark at livecode.com
Thu May 18 08:44:20 EDT 2017


On 2017-05-18 13:29, hh via use-livecode wrote:
> No, not only the binary-level compatibility is the problem. LC Builder
> is not downward compatible (without documenting that), already running
> parts are removed.
> 
> See for example (in forum/bug-triage):
> http://forums.livecode.com/viewtopic.php?p=148665#p148665

I have to remind people - please file bug reports! If you don't then the
chances of these things getting addressed, explained, or advice given
reduces greatly.

The issue there I'm pretty sure is purely one of non-binary 
compatibility.
The module files generated by the lc-compile tool in any major version 
is likely to only
produce files what work in that major version.

(It does sound like a bug has crept in there, potentially, in resource
resolution though - hence my comment about filing bug reports).

So the problem actually reduces to - having a widget which does not use
anything new in LCB V+1, but you want to use in V and V+1. This is 
solved simply
by compiling the widget file with the lc-compile from V and the 
lc-compile from
V+1.

If your widget uses new LCB features which are only in V+1, then 
backwards
compatibility isn't going to work - like it wouldn't in a stack which 
was written
to use features in 9, which aren't in 8.

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

-- 
Mark Waddingham ~ mark at livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps




More information about the Use-livecode mailing list